View Full Version : Discrimination or not
geoffsta
02-07-2011, 9:49am
I recently went up to an area I haven’t been for about 25 years. It was up at the head of the Murray River in an area called the Cobberas.
Last time I was there we had to walk about a kilometer to were the river was, on a fairly good track.
When I went up there this time the parking area was in a different spot, and I walked in about 8km and still didn’t arrive at the location. As it was getting late I was forced to return back to the car.
Now I agree that we must protect our flora and fauna, and protect areas for future generations. But is this necessary.
This is a lovely area, and should be for all to see. I believe that having a setup like that discriminates against the aged, frail and handicapped, who have no chance now to see such a lovely area. There would be no chance to push someone in a wheelchair to the area, or assist the elderly. To me great areas like this are only for the extremely fit walk a thousand mile type person.
Should we say that if you want to go to a major city, you must park 10km’s away and walk in. No.
If you want to go up to Mt Wellington, Mt Hotham or Mt Kosiusko should we ask people to park miles away, and walk to the top. I really don’t think so.
I know there must be many areas like this. There are many members involved with this forum that would not get a chance to see these Australian icons because of degree of fitness, or some form of disability.
Do you feel the same, or is it just me.
Tannin
02-07-2011, 10:13am
This sort of change is inevitable Geoff. As the population increases, the park managers become more and more concerned about use damage to the natural environment - introduction of weeds, diseases, depletion of fish stocks, fires, and all the many other things that humans tend to do to destroy places. Now that concern may or may not be justified in this particular instance, but it is most certainly a very real and significant concern more broadly. As the population continues to increase, so too the condition of our natural areas continue to decline, and the rules restricting access to them will get more and more restrictive. Just a fact of life.
As the population continues to increase, so too the condition of our natural areas continue to decline, and the rules restricting access to them will get more and more restrictive. Just a fact of life.
I do understand your point, Tony, but I have to ask myself "Who are we protecting these areas for, park rangers and academics?" Rather than restricting access, perhaps we should be looking at ways of providing access without damage. The typical solutions include elevated walkways and dedicated access corridors and viewing platforms. Ok, so providing carparks in the middle of natural attractions isn't a good idea, but people should still be encouraged to get out and see these things, even if it means providing some form of sympathetic transport system. :confused013
I can think of a few national parks that would be hugely improved by having to walk 10 km to get into them...
We are preserving them for our children, Whodo. For the future. For the priceless and irreplacable knowledge that is contained in them, for the equally priceless and equally irreplacable beauty that is contained in them. Only by preserving intact areas now is it possible for our children to start restoring some of the damage we have done. Only by preserving biodiversity today is it possible to retain it in the future.
Why not get to the real heart of the problem and not keep on madly breeding and importing more and more and more people? None of these things I mention are a problem if we don't have too many people.
We are preserving them for our children, Whodo. For the future. For the priceless and irreplacable knowledge that is contained in them, for the equally priceless and equally irreplacable beauty that is contained in them. Only by preserving intact areas now is it possible for our children to start restoring some of the damage we have done. Only by preserving biodiversity today is it possible to retain it in the future.
Ok, but what if our children are disabled and cannot access these areas by foot? The "irreplaceable beauty" isn't worth much if no-one gets to see it, IMHO. It's like owning a priceless work of art and keeping it in a vault! What's the point? :confused013 I still say there has to be a way to make such places accessible without destroying or irretrievably damaging them, surely.
geoffsta
02-07-2011, 5:33pm
We are preserving them for our children, Whodo. For the future. For the priceless and irreplacable knowledge that is contained in them, for the equally priceless and equally irreplacable beauty that is contained in them. Only by preserving intact areas now is it possible for our children to start restoring some of the damage we have done. Only by preserving biodiversity today is it possible to retain it in the future.
Good point tannin. But as you said "rules restricting access to them will get more and more restrictive" Even our kids wont see these areas, because they will be restricted. Plus one lightning strike, and it will all be gone for everyone. And that has happened in many areas.
Why not let us photographers in there, so at least our kids can see pictures?
It's a catch 22, provide better access and too many people come and you get the idiots who don't respect the environment enough and cause more damage. I'd also argue an elevated platform isn't always the most sustainable way to make low impact access.
Look I'm all for equal access but I hate seeing the highways some parks call walking tracks these days. I say if you really want to see it, you have to earn it. I know that can cause discrimination but let's be fair here, you can't make the bush, forests or mountains totally accessible to all users.
Rather than restricting access, perhaps we should be looking at ways of providing access without damage. The typical solutions include elevated walkways and dedicated access corridors and viewing platforms.
Waz, therein lies the double rub, if you have a look at these images (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?86465-A-bit-of-a-No-No) that Geoff posted from "our backyard" you will see the start of a fairly extensive board walk that takes people on a stroll around the cape with minimal damage to the environment. It was constructed primarily as a project by the local indigenous council and the DSE (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/) to both provide access to some very appealing scenery without destroying both local cultural heritage and sensitive coast line. Sadly it seems, due to natural ageing of the structures and government budget restraints, the walkway may have to be closed for public safety. :confused013
Lance B
02-07-2011, 5:50pm
I agree with Waz (WhoDo) If people are denied the interaction provided by National Parks, ie being able to access areas easily, then what the hell is a National Park for? People need to be able to interact or they will quickly lose interest in protecting national parks as there is nothing in it for them. They just need to provide access areas which do not damage the environment or at least have minimal impact.
macmich
02-07-2011, 6:00pm
geoff
you no what its like geoff when you go for a walk in the scrub and you come across a lot of rubbish and whatever
i believe if you make everything accessible
there will be a hell of a lot of damage by the minority
that will destroy a great deal of flora and fauna
i am forever watching where i am walking and making sure i dont step on native plants and ground covers
this is the problem when you open up the areas to all with easy accaess
you get the car in further and then you think i drove that far i mighht as well walk in theere a bit further
i believe that a few areas should be shut to the public for a while and let the native regrowth occur and rangers and so forth clean up at the same toim
cheers macca
Lance what do you consider easy access? I visit a national park at least every weekend. There are always different tracks for different levels of fitness. Some are as sort as less than a km, how can they be more accessible? Yes not all parks are equal, but you can't make parks to have the same access everywhere. There has to be some understanding from ambulant people.
I know that can cause discrimination but let's be fair here, you can't make the bush, forests or mountains totally accessible to all users.
Why not? Oh, I know that you are using absolutes (totally, all, etc), but that shouldn't preclude the effort, should it?
Our bush and coastal areas in Australia are some of the oldest and most fragile environments there are. I want to see them preserved for future generations to enjoy, but I also want us to find ways of doing that inclusively wherever possible.
"Earning (sic) access" shouldn't simply require fitness, for example. Some people who will never be fit enough through no fault of their own should still be able to enjoy the experience first hand, shouldn't they? I know it's a bit off topic as an example but look at Riding for the Disabled for one example.
Look, I don't really know what I'm asking for here. Maybe it doesn't even exist yet, but I'd sure like to think that we who have such a great appreciation of natural beauty ought to be advocates for sharing that with all people wherever possible and not just saving it for a fortunate few. I guess that's all I'm saying.
Duane Pipe
02-07-2011, 6:25pm
How far did you have to travel only to be disappointed like that Geoff.:eek:
I went to my local lake/reserve which is my favourite Birding spot only to find rubbish laying on the
ground that some lazy basted could not be bothered dumping in the nearest bin
And it wasn't just a lolly paper or two but Macer's! and a family of 4 by the looks.:action:
So for a start blame that type of people, and the Greens don't help either wanting to lock everything up
I dont mind conservation but not Green
Whodo, to give you some perspective, I work in the building industry (for an architect) to be specific. The building codes for disabled and equitable access are so strict there would be no way of providing this type of access to national parks without destroying it. And you would need to provide that level because the anti discrimination and equitable access laws are so strong these days even federal government could be sued if it wasn't done to the code.
That's where I come from when talking about this, as well as my passion for recreation in national parks.
There is no way to make all parts of our natural environment accessible for all. There has to be compromise. I know it's a fact and the day when I'm too enfeebled to be able to do what I do now, I'll have to accept it. And will do so knowing that it'll help preserve it for the next generation to enjoy.
Duane Pipe
02-07-2011, 6:42pm
It won't be long until they close state parks and charge a entry fee for the up keep of tracks and amenities
The thing that must be understood here is that there is a direct relationship between the level of access permitted and the number of people wanting that access.
If you go outback, to the parts where there are still very few people, you can do pretty much whatever you like (within reason), and go where you like. Nobody minds where you go because any small damage you do is likely to disappear and be erased by nature long before anyone sees it. There is no long-term harm. This is still the case in some parts of Australia today, but much less so than it was, say, 30 years ago.
Park managers have to try to balance several very different requirements.
(1) they are required to preserve the flora and fauna of the park intact. Remember that simply having people access the park at all can be very, very destructive. Fire is obvious, but land tends to recover from fire if you wait long enough. Far worse is invasion by feral plants and animals. Phytophthora fungus is a prime example. Some people know how to avoid spreading it, most don't.
(2) they are required to provide public access so far as they can
(3) they are required to, where possible, provide for different sorts of public access and use. For example, on some public land you are allowed to ride trail bikes, which wrecks the whole nature experience for every other user of that park. It would be sheer madness to allow trail bikes everywhere, as there would be nowhere you could escape from the noise and erosion and disruption to faunal breeding cycles. On the other hand, trailbike riders claim that they are entitled to their sport - so, somewhere along the way, there is a sensible compromise. Similarly, you can't sensibly go bushwalking where there is vechicle access. There is nothing worse than having some meathead turn up next to you with blaring stereo and destructive kids and generators running all night. Equally, there is nothing worse than having road access to your favourite spot blocked off - I should know, because with my gear I can't walk more than about 5k from thhe car, absolute max.
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.
peterb666
02-07-2011, 7:09pm
When I was a child you could drive up to just under the summit of Mt Kosiusko and it was just a short walk to the top. These days you park kilometres away and need to start early and be reasonably fit, especially in the time of year I am likely to visit, April or October. That means that unlike my father who took me the highest point in Australia, I had to show my son from a distance and point out to him the road and where it went and tell him what it was like decades earlier.
It is a hard call as to what is needed to preserve something as opposed to providing public access and it will always be a compromise.
Duane Pipe
02-07-2011, 8:04pm
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 :(
Well I want to see the view from the top of Mt Everest. So the sooner there's a railway line up there the better. Until then, I'm glad that photography was invented so that I can see the views others have seen.
Good topic Geoff
Scotty72
02-07-2011, 8:23pm
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
02-07-2011, 8:39pm
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
02-07-2011, 8:55pm
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
02-07-2011, 9:02pm
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
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
02-07-2011, 9:56pm
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
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
02-07-2011, 10:08pm
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? :D
Scotty
Scotty72
02-07-2011, 10:09pm
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? :D
geoffsta
02-07-2011, 10:10pm
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.
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
02-07-2011, 10:24pm
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 :confused013:confused013 (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
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.
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
02-07-2011, 10:58pm
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. :confused013
Tannin
02-07-2011, 11:29pm
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
02-07-2011, 11:32pm
We want to see the bush, ocean & open plains, we want it all :eek:
What about the little creatures & plants that can only live there & no where else :confused013
Col
Fishing in SA ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzMpV8V6SfY&feature=player_embedded#at=82
Dylan & Marianne
02-07-2011, 11:49pm
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
03-07-2011, 8:04am
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 :eek:
The building codes for disabled and equitable access are so strict there would be no way of providing this type of access to national parks without destroying it. And you would need to provide that level because the anti discrimination and equitable access laws are so strong these days even federal government could be sued if it wasn't done to the code.
Sure. I get that, but I do think people in general (not you or anyone else specifically) tend at times to say "Oh, well, we can't do that so let's just accept it and move on" when what is needed is more of "Oh, well, we can't do that so how can we achieve something as good by thinking laterally". For example, if we don't want cars, trucks, cycles, etc trundling through our parks, and I sure as heck don't, what about developing a form of narrow gauge or elevated light rail access to key viewing points? Surely that can be achieved without destroying the environment in between the main access point and the key viewing point? It should never be "too hard" to help those less fortunate than ourselves IMHO, and I'm just as guilty of that approach as anyone else so there's no finger-pointing going on here either!
There is no way to make all parts of our natural environment accessible for all. There has to be compromise. I know it's a fact and the day when I'm too enfeebled to be able to do what I do now, I'll have to accept it. And will do so knowing that it'll help preserve it for the next generation to enjoy.
I can accept that "there is no way" that we know of right now, but maybe being in your area of expertise, Mike, you can be challenged to find a new way? This isn't about building monuments to human laziness or destroying our natural heritage before it can be shared by future generations. I'm certainly with you in that perspective. Maybe there do have to be compromises made, but compromises shouldn't require complete acquiescence on the part of one or other party. With some innovative thinking, the win-win solution is always a possibility IMHO.
Scotty72
03-07-2011, 8:45am
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.
Unfortunately, the nsw govt exempts itself from many standards it imposes upon others. Most parents would not accept the conditions for their workplace that they allow in their kids' school (in a range of areas) but, that is another topic.
I don't think anyone is suggesting all parks be paved over. Simply, that access be provided to key areas. It is possible if there is the will. Unfortunately, it doesn't affect most people so, they don't care.
However, if we fail to provide equity of access / dignity then, we should give up on the notion that we are a civilized, first world country and go back to sticking 'the cripples' into asylums. (note the sarcasm)
We are either civilized or we are not.
Scotty
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.
Sure, there will still be places that remain inaccessible to people with disabilities. As you say "that's life". That shouldn't stop us from using our intellect to find ways around the restrictions that achieve the objective without destroying it in the process, should it? :confused013
I can't see a way around your Ayers Rock example at the moment, Kym, but there may be one some day. I can already envisage a way around the Harbour Bridge climb, though. We have chair lifts that get people up stairs where ramps are impossible or impractical. Why not a chair lift on the Harbour Bridge? Why not a Luna Park style of roller coaster rail access? The extra infrastructure isn't exactly going to stand out amid the millions of tonnes of steel already there anyway!
Yes, it will cost money, time and effort to achieve these things. And that investment must be balanced with other more pressing priorities, for sure. Should the ideal be abandoned then as "too hard"? I think that too often we collectively choose the easy alternative without truly pressing ourselves to go a bit further for others. I'd rather spend money on a chair lift to the top of the bridge than an extra 5 minutes of fireworks at New Year, and I LOVE the fireworks despite the cost!
For example, I am truly jealous of you bird lovers that can hike to where they are to take their photographs. Last year I was fortunate enough to get a taste of that because someone in Uralla NSW had the foresight to provide a hide for photographers accessible from the main road without damaging the fragile ecology of the area. The result, for me, was spectacular! I was able to get a picture of a nesting black swan (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?69162-Nesting-swan-Uralla.&p=701081#post701081) without disturbing either the bird or its habitat! Thank you for those with a vision to not only preserve our natural heritage but also to make it accessible whenever possible.
I think the OP's point was that taking the easy option may be discriminatory. At least that's how I read the question and therefore how I framed my responses. Life may hand us lemons but I'd sure love someone to teach us how to make lemonade (ok, I know that's hackneyed, but you have to admit it's reasonably appropriate :D ). When bad things happen to good people, I'm naive enough to say I want to respond not with "Why me" but "What can I use that experience to achieve?" :confused013
Scotty72
03-07-2011, 10:05am
Sure, there will still be places that remain inaccessible to people with disabilities. As you say "that's life". That shouldn't stop us from using our intellect to find ways around the restrictions that achieve the objective without destroying it in the process, should it? :confused013
I can't see a way around your Ayers Rock example at the moment, Kym, but there may be one some day. I can already envisage a way around the Harbour Bridge climb, though. We have chair lifts that get people up stairs where ramps are impossible or impractical. Why not a chair lift on the Harbour Bridge? Why not a Luna Park style of roller coaster rail access? The extra infrastructure isn't exactly going to stand out amid the millions of tonnes of steel already there anyway!
Yes, it will cost money, time and effort to achieve these things. And that investment must be balanced with other more pressing priorities, for sure. Should the ideal be abandoned then as "too hard"? I think that too often we collectively choose the easy alternative without truly pressing ourselves to go a bit further for others. I'd rather spend money on a chair lift to the top of the bridge than an extra 5 minutes of fireworks at New Year, and I LOVE the fireworks despite the cost!
For example, I am truly jealous of you bird lovers that can hike to where they are to take their photographs. Last year I was fortunate enough to get a taste of that because someone in Uralla NSW had the foresight to provide a hide for photographers accessible from the main road without damaging the fragile ecology of the area. The result, for me, was spectacular! I was able to get a picture of a nesting black swan (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?69162-Nesting-swan-Uralla.&p=701081#post701081) without disturbing either the bird or its habitat! Thank you for those with a vision to not only preserve our natural heritage but also to make it accessible whenever possible.
I think the OP's point was that taking the easy option may be discriminatory. At least that's how I read the question and therefore how I framed my responses. Life may hand us lemons but I'd sure love someone to teach us how to make lemonade (ok, I know that's hackneyed, but you have to admit it's reasonably appropriate :D ). When bad things happen to good people, I'm naive enough to say I want to respond not with "Why me" but "What can I use that experience to achieve?" :confused013
Well said !
Rather than restricting access, perhaps we should be looking at ways of providing access without damage.
I was in Zion National Park earlier this year. They have a system whereby in the off-peak season, you can drive to all areas of the park in your own car. However, once the crowds become too great, they restrict access to the main roads, and provide (very) regular & free shuttle services to the rest of the park. Runs like clockwork, and it's actually nice to be able to relax on a bus and listen to some commentary about the park rather than alternate between reading a map and looking for a car space.
Unfortunately, if something like this was to be implemented in Australia, the buses would run every 2 hours, would only take you to half the places, and it'd cost $17 per person each way.
Scotty72
03-07-2011, 12:18pm
Unfortunately, if something like this was to be implemented in Australia, the buses would run every 2 hours, would only take you to half the places, and it'd cost $17 per person each way.
I'm not so sure. I reckon the main prob with regular shuttles or public transport is Australians will, culturally, will not use them.
I live very, very close to Sydney's Olympic stadium. It is extremely well serviced by both buses and trains which run 3/4 empty whilst motorists clog up the surrounding streets by endlessly circling the neighborhood for parking spots that don't exist.
If people were more willing to fill up the buses rather than demand the right to drive to the various attractions then the fares and schedules would far more friendly.
Just as an exercise, go to any shopping centre car-park and notice where people park - they will circle around close to the entrance waiting for a spot rather than park out the back then walk or catch the internal shuttle that is provided by some.
And, it's even worse at the mega-malls right by train stations - why to they need 11 huge levels of parking when the train stops at the front door? Because most Australians don't like the idea of mixing with the plebs on public transit. :(
Tannin
03-07-2011, 12:34pm
If we are talking about visitor levels such that a shuttle bus is even imaginable, we have long since gone past the point where we are talking about an actual national park of biological significance. We are now discussing nature fun parks. (Which is fine, I have no problem with such things, indeed I think they are really useful and important, but we need to keep at least one eye on the biological realities here.)
I'm not so sure. I reckon the main prob with regular shuttles or public transport is Australians will, culturally, will not use them.
I live very, very close to Sydney's Olympic stadium. It is extremely well serviced by both buses and trains which run 3/4 empty whilst motorists clog up the surrounding streets by endlessly circling the neighborhood for parking spots that don't exist.
Sure, there are examples of areas that are well-serviced, but I'm afraid they're in the minority. Try to get anywhere out Manly Warringah way, or even down at Dolls Point / Sans Souci, and it's a different story. It's a very long, very slow and expensive trip, as we found at last time we visited Homebush for a concert. They were urging people to take public transport, so we did. Huge mistake; we'll never do that again! It simply took way too long to get home - after we discovered they sign-posted the wrong platform at Redfern in the wee hours of the morning. No Announcement, nothing. After sitting for 30 mins we went back up to ask someone... "oh you should be on another platform". And yes, it was *still* wrong when we ran past.
My wife was telling me just yersterday that she went 2 vert short stops on the train the other day, and it cost $6.50!!! Most other capital cities in the world would charge you $2.
The reason people generally don't use public transport is because it isn't cost effective, and it simply isn't reliable. So even when visiting areas that are serviced well, people simply don't consider it as an option because of their previous experiences with public transport. And you haver to admit, struggling on a bus or train - or both - isn't much fun with 6 bags of shopping! I don't begrudge shoppers that at least.
Duane Pipe
03-07-2011, 7:20pm
Country borne lad I am but I have experienced the city.
I can remember back about 28 years ago I was caching the train from Lilydale into the City of Melbourne
I did that for 2 years while I was going to RMIT
And the Trains ran like clockwork,
Today all I hear about public transport is how unreliable it has become.
Why the hell would you want to use it!
Put me in a car any day
geoffsta
03-07-2011, 7:42pm
Ah.. Public transport. Have one bus go through once a day, at an hour that would not get anyone to work on time. And it doesn't go to the town were I work anyway. :confused013
Back to the subject. Eco tourism or Eco tours could resolve the problem, but they are not allowed to travel any further than the rest of us. (related to the subject of public transport :) ) And having one person on that tour that has a disability of any sort, stops the rest from going.
Scotty72
03-07-2011, 11:19pm
This becomes a silly chicken / egg statement.
Do people not use PT because the service is crap
Or
Does the service become crap because fewer people use it.
I suspect it may be the latter. Take Sydney as an eg. The M4 tracks alongside the main western line (and stays with 2-3kms of it the whole way). Everyday, untold thousands go from areas well serviced to other areas that are well serviced along the same line (Penrith / Blacktown / Parramatta / Strathfield / City) but most go by car. They could at least drive to a commuter car park then take the train (as I did when I lived at Rooty Hill) :th3:.
It is a cultural thing. I've lived in a few Asian cities, some better serviced by PT and some not but, they have a PT culture and are prepared to make multi-mode / multi-line trips.
We seem to have a culture that won't tolerate PT unless we have to - and we expect the govt to fix the unsolvable traffic gridlock (but, of course - we won't pay for it :cool:)
Anyway, this is getting off-topic. But, then again, in we toned down our car culture - perhaps a road could be be built through a National Park might not necessarily lead to it being trashed.
Tannin
03-07-2011, 11:48pm
perhaps a road could be be built through a National Park might not necessarily lead to it being trashed.
Every road does damage, Scotty. Significant damage.
Obviously, it directly destroys a portion of the park.
The construction and maintenance machinery destroys a good deal more. Not just through mechanical damage (bulldozer tracks and the like) but, far more significantly, through the introduction of weeds and diseases.
The road itself provides an easy route for the penetration of this park by feral animals - foxes in particular, and foxes, as we know, are the most damaging and destructive of all feral animals in Australia. Where the bush is dense, it has been shown that knocking even a rough track through produces a significant increase in fox predation on rare and threatened bird, mammal, and reptile species.
The road brings visitors. Visitor vehicles, shoes and clothing bring in a variety of diseases, including in particular the deadly Phytophthora fungus - see here http://www.dieback.org.au/go/what-is-dieback/what-is-phytophthora-dieback if you don't know what Phytophthora is.
Visitors also bring in weed seeds. Weed infestation is a huge, repeat huge problem in parks and reserves. Left unchecked, weeds can destroy the entire ecosystem of a park - and they quite often do. It is normal to expect a badly weed-infested reserve to have around one-tenth of the biodiversity of a healthy park. And, of course, the few native species that do remain are nearly always the most common, least important ones. Most people are completely clueless about weeds. It is easy to make sure you don't spread them, but hardly anyone besides those with biological training or experienced bushwalkers knows how or even cares.
Visitors bring litter.
Visitors start fires.
Visitors destroy stuff by trampling, cutting firewood, and other activities.
Visitors bring in feral animals - the number of idiots who bring pets in to national parks is astonishing!
Visitors demand facilities, which in turn create destruction of their own.
Visitors get turned off by the regimentation and the damage caused by other visitors, so they go off looking for as-yet unspoiled parts of the park and damage those parts as well.
Various other things I forget right now
Now some of these factors are quite small (trampling only becomes a major issue where there are lots of visitors, or where the particular habitat is especially vulnerable - a peat moss wetland, for example) but others -weeds and diseases in particular - are huge. And all of these factors become worse as you squeeze ever more people into ever-smaller remaining bits of intact or semi-intact natural bushland.
Scotty72
04-07-2011, 12:06am
I don't disagree.
My point was a bus carrying 50 people will have far less impact than 50 cars carrying 1 person each.
Dylan & Marianne
04-07-2011, 6:05am
It can be done reasonably well (public transport system in a national park)
You may or may not have heard of Jiuzhaigou in China but that is a pristine part of China in Szechuan province. They have roads and boardwalks leading up the two valleys serviced by buses that run every 10 minutes. Despite the sheer volume of visitors there, surprisigly, you could see very little impact around the environment - of course the mind boggles as to how it would have looked without the roads and tourism there, but let me tell you - mainland Chinese are far from the most eco friendly local tourists and if that many can visit a UNESCO area and leave little footprint, it is a good example of how it can be done (albeit with an impact but minimised).
arthurking83
04-07-2011, 6:52am
At the least they could build a motel, campground, kiosk and an amenities block there I reckon Geoff!
Considering the remoteness of the place tho I doubt that you'd see one person a week up there tho. It's basically a road to and from nowhere and not on any major tourist highway.
It'd take me all day to do the round trip walk, so I'm loathe to do so.
I've seen areas and points of significance being developed to silly levels over the years as well(the one that sticks to mind is the Ada Tree near Noojee).
It seems that the one in particular that Geoff is referring too used to be a track that got you a lot closer to a point of interest, whereas now they've decided that the track should be closed off permanently and the walk to a specific point of interest made excruciatingly difficult now.
I tend to believe that it's all about funding(for a track that most likely needs a lot of maintenance, and limitation of liability more than ecological conscience.
Silly thing is, that being so remote, there is more likely to be damage caused by the Rambo Yahoo element because fewer people are likely to visit the area now.
I'm not 100% sure if it's a case of discrimination. I doubt that one could argue discriminatory grounds with an ecologically sensitive department just to have access re opened.
I'm sure financial consideration is a major portion in closing the track/s.
I remember years back when on a trip into desert country, due to weather constraints, we had to divert to places of no particular interest, and one of them was Broken Hill. Whilst there, we found that there was this Painted Desert thingy display, high up on a hill, and there was no way I was going to be able to walk up the 1 or so klms to the summit to view the art display. On casually and jokingly mentioning this to the lady at the tourist office, she claimed that they have a disabled access key, that allows folks to drive the majority of the way to the top and then do a short walk to the gallery.
I reckoned that the gate itself was not really a deterrent to would be gate crashing anarchistic art mutilators armed with cans of spray paint, but strangely enough it was damage free.. and ended up being a nice place to visit all up.
Had it not been for their disabled policy, I'd never have visited the hill top, as it was strictly out of bounds for my then only 6 month old leg injury.
I think there's always an answer to a problem, and that there's always going to be a small element of uncooperative folk that will always have a need to destroy stuff.
I'm wondering if the government is better off providing a park simply for them to destroy at will. Toilet blocks seem to be a favoured target for these types, as well as fences, bins and elevated platforms.
All it needs is nice easy access too the park, but completely impossible access out of the park, with one way razor wire and other externally bound booby traps to play with! :D
geoffsta
04-07-2011, 7:27am
The discriminatary part of it was. As I was leaving there was a family of 5 obviously going up there to camp. They were all super fit. You know the ones. Big flash 4x4, dad with the calf musles the size of footballs, Super fit mum with no boobs, teenage kids decked out in the lastest hiking gear, all wearing the $400 hiking boots, and carrying enough gear for a day or two.
They would go up there and; Light fires, cut fire wood, spread their rubbish, trample everything to death, twice as much as a group of people with gimpy legs, who would have a bit of a look around, maybe take some photos, then leave.
You must remember that this area is a six hour drive from Melbourne, and a two hour drive from any small town, with more wild horses in the area than there would be visitors during a weekday ( I did get to see a stallion while I was there. To far away and too quick for me to take a shot.)
The discriminatary part of it was. As I was leaving there was a family of 5 obviously going up there to camp. They were all super fit. You know the ones. Big flash 4x4, dad with the calf musles the size of footballs, Super fit mum with no boobs, teenage kids decked out in the lastest hiking gear, all wearing the $400 hiking boots, and carrying enough gear for a day or two.
They would go up there and; Light fires, cut fire wood, spread their rubbish, trample everything to death...
Geoff I think the very sight of these people would make me throw up, nevertheless there are a lot of unfair assumptions in this post.
Duane Pipe
04-07-2011, 7:53am
Boob less :lol:
They might have done the right thing and took their rubbish home, but I doubt it
Who owns the bush Geoff. I do we all do and it think it my right to go anywhere that I like
within reason
I lived in Rawson for 15 years and do you think that Melbourne Water was going to stop me from entering the Thompson Catchment
not on your life
I would enter via a gated but well formed track, no damage done and all I would take was my rod a few lurers a drink and a sanga
no mess no fuss
No way were they stopping me from having a crack at what would be the best trout spot on the main land, I have heard of 20lb trout
being caught :th3:
Although it was illegal entry No harm was done IMHO
Shh don't tell any body about my spot:eek:
only joking, most trout men from around the Valley go there:cool:
Duane Pipe
04-07-2011, 8:51am
Geoff Are you sure that the track is closed permanently or is at a seasonal closure.
Most forestry tracks are locked in June and re open in October
geoffsta
04-07-2011, 9:16am
Definitely all year round. Other seasonal tracks were still open at the time.
I will get up there, later in the year. I'll get there early, take a drink and take some nibbles, a decent pair of boots. And make a full day of it.
The discriminatary part of it was. As I was leaving there was a family of 5 obviously going up there to camp. They were all super fit. You know the ones. Big flash 4x4, dad with the calf musles the size of footballs, Super fit mum with no boobs, teenage kids decked out in the lastest hiking gear, all wearing the $400 hiking boots, and carrying enough gear for a day or two.
They would go up there and; Light fires, cut fire wood, spread their rubbish, trample everything to death, twice as much as a group of people with gimpy legs, who would have a bit of a look around, maybe take some photos, then leave.
You must remember that this area is a six hour drive from Melbourne, and a two hour drive from any small town, with more wild horses in the area than there would be visitors during a weekday ( I did get to see a stallion while I was there. To far away and too quick for me to take a shot.)
Wow, what a bad generalisation. I'm pretty sure if saw me and my friends then you'd throw up too. Unfortunately we are fit and well equipped. Just because people have decent gear and aren't dorky looking doesn't mean they will disrespect the environment.....
Scotty72
04-07-2011, 11:56am
It may be an awful generalization but, unfortunately, it is often very true.
The weekend warrior types who turn up with all the gear and no idea and think she'll be right.
Generally, when the guy gets out of his 4wd and starts spit-polishing the mud flaps... Not good :lol:
Perhaps we should use the old saying "don't judge a book by its cover"
Perhaps we should use the old saying "don't judge a book by its cover"
How else are you supposed to judge a book? You can't read it in the shop.
terry.langham
04-07-2011, 1:21pm
The discriminatary part of it was. As I was leaving there was a family of 5 obviously going up there to camp. They were all super fit. You know the ones. Big flash 4x4, dad with the calf musles the size of footballs, Super fit mum with no boobs, teenage kids decked out in the lastest hiking gear, all wearing the $400 hiking boots, and carrying enough gear for a day or two.
They would go up there and; Light fires, cut fire wood, spread their rubbish, trample everything to death, twice as much as a group of people with gimpy legs, who would have a bit of a look around, maybe take some photos, then leave.
You must remember that this area is a six hour drive from Melbourne, and a two hour drive from any small town, with more wild horses in the area than there would be visitors during a weekday ( I did get to see a stallion while I was there. To far away and too quick for me to take a shot.)
So because they weren't unkept, filthy, dreadlock toting, cheesecloth skirted, tiedye shirted, dope smokin' hippies there is no way they could be passionate about the environment? Generalisations don't help anybodies cause, ever. Sounds to me like they have made a big effort to get there and be safe, what would be the sense in then destroying what they came to enjoy.
Duane Pipe
04-07-2011, 8:01pm
So because they weren't unkept, filthy, dreadlock toting, cheesecloth skirted, tiedye shirted, dope smokin' hippies there is no way they could be passionate about the environment? Generalisations don't help anybodies cause, ever. Sounds to me like they have made a big effort to get there and be safe, what would be the sense in then destroying what they came to enjoy.
Sitting back relaxing in my car in Boolarra, A small country town in Gippsland. I was parked in front of the local shop, When the good looking driver in the car parked in front of me says to her friend who looked respectable also, could you please empty my Ash Tray
Straight in the F______g gutter all the butts went.
4 or 5 more steps she would have been at the bin.
There are pigs in amongst us and you just never know who they are.
Me and a mate went camping at Woods point not so long ago and camped at a spot that was only, just big enough to fit a fire, which was already there, my Hilux
and tent.
After 6 days you could not tell that we had been there.
All the biodegradables go into the fire and the rest into the empty eskies.
I do not scatter shit through the bush.
Not now, Because I have grown up.
BUT 27 years ago I didn't give a shit what I threw out of the car window,
McDonalds wrappers and as much shit that I could shovel
Im not sure whether I am speaking for myself. but think back to your youth.
I just hope that we learn from our mistakes
geoffsta
04-07-2011, 9:20pm
Wow, what a bad generalisation. I'm pretty sure if saw me and my friends then you'd throw up too. Unfortunately we are fit and well equipped. Just because people have decent gear and aren't dorky looking doesn't mean they will disrespect the environment.....
So because they weren't unkept, filthy, dreadlock toting, cheesecloth skirted, tiedye shirted, dope smokin' hippies there is no way they could be passionate about the environment? Generalisations don't help anybodies cause, ever. Sounds to me like they have made a big effort to get there and be safe, what would be the sense in then destroying what they came to enjoy.
A. I didn't say they make me want to vomit. In fact I admire them, and strive to be that fit one day.
B. I haven't mentioned anything in this whole thread about greenies.
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that if access was easier there would be people up there lighting fires, cutting firewood and so on and so on. But if a group of people who are reasonably fit can get to the location (which now days is getting more and more common) will do just that.
I work within the health system, and deal mainly with the elderly and disabled. And we often do day trips. I thought it would be nice for these people to see this area, see where the Murrey River starts, and enjoy the scenery just like anyone else. But because of the situation with its access being such a great distance, it would be impossible.
Is this discrimination or not.
...Is this discrimination or not.
It's not discrimination, it's just reality. True, it is a harsh reality that some people miss out on certain activities and experiences because they have physical impairments.
Is it fair that they can't get to remote locations? No. But then it's not fair they're disabled in the first place either.
Scotty72
04-07-2011, 9:34pm
It's not discrimination, it's just reality. True, it is a harsh reality that some people miss out on certain activities and experiences because they have physical impairments.
Is it fair that they can't get to remote locations? No. But then it's not fair they're disabled in the first place either.
It used to be reality that many disabled people were not able to work in office buildings or ride trains etc.
Gee, I'm glad that we became more civilised and allowed them to emerge from hiding and do normal things.
Not much different with parks.
Scotty
PS. Only 100 years ago, it was considered that women were incapable of voting or going to uni. We got over over small mindedness about that and accommodated them.
Ditto for disabled and office buildings and public transport. Why is this different?
Yep, and when there's been some time to plan and implement ecologically-sound infrastructure to allow physically impaired people safe access to remote areas, then we'll all be happy, won't we? Until then, the reality remains that some people cannot access some areas in this great big continent of ours. Give it some time though Scotty, things can change.
geoffsta
04-07-2011, 10:11pm
It's not discrimination, it's just reality. True, it is a harsh reality that some people miss out on certain activities and experiences because they have physical impairments.
Is it fair that they can't get to remote locations? No. But then it's not fair they're disabled in the first place either.
A quick simple answer to the question. :th3:
Scotty72
04-07-2011, 10:13pm
I believe that it was Martin Luther King Jnr who once said, 'There is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.'
And some Pommie bloke said that, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.'
Mark L
04-07-2011, 10:51pm
MLK wasn't referring to the Australian "bush", and Jules addressed injustice just fine.:)
Duane Pipe
04-07-2011, 11:24pm
Why didn't i think of this before. SHIT....:angry0:
I was in the Thompson Catchment on the 30/06/2011, Taking photos
of my friends property and I came across a 4x4 bogged to the arse In mud, It had a
Tasmanian forestry emblem on the door
I asked if they needed a hand, as I do
After a chit chat they told me that they were out testing new tankers for the DSE.
Bloody bull shit.
They were playing in the mud I did not take a picture but I really regret that now.
When the rest of their crew showed up they were all laughing and taking photos of a
situation that i would not get in and you would have to be a Dick Head Too, becouse I could see that the ruts were three feet deep. Yippy Look at me:action:
Frigging Paid to destroy the bush
Now Who are we protecting the bush from again:confused013
Here is a link to the local news
http://www.wintv.com.au/western_victoria/news/item/42244
in the 70s I was working in the Northen Flinders Ranges,which at that time was inaccessible to any form of transport,Camel Trains was the only means of getting close but couldn`t get into the area.The company that I worked for cut roads into this area.
The Bulldozer operator slipped off the side of one track he was building and took three days to get back on,when the enviormentalist complained about the desecration of the countryside it was pointed out if it wasnt for the tracks you wouldn`t have known what it looked like.
We will always have this problem because someone wants to create a noise instead of finding a solution for all involved.
Jack.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.