Majors Creek SCA - Deua Catchment Parks Draft Plan of Management

[bundyjd]

After nearly 3 years the Deua Catchment Parks Plan of Management has been signed off on by the Minister for Energy & Environment.
They said in my email that only a modest number of submissions were received during public exhibition of the draft plan. Changes made to the exhibited plan include clarifying the reason for not allowing fossicking so I assume there were some other submissions apart from mine that asked for fossicking to be considered?

Quote "Although fossicking is not consistent with the management principles of nature reserves, it can occur in state conservation areas subject to appropriate environmental and risk assessment.

Fossicking, such as panning and detecting, could potentially be undertaken on creeks within Majors Creek and Berlang state conservation areas. However, visitor activities in Majors Creek State Conservation Area are limited by the lack of suitable public access. Areas around Bells Creek are accessible but contain the remains of dwellings and mine workings which have not yet been assessed for their shared cultural heritage significance (see Section 3.4). The former mine workings pose a safety risk to visitors. Fossicking in Majors Creek State Conservation Area will not be allowed unless visitor access is improved and shared cultural heritage values around Bells Creek are assessed.

Visitor access at Berlang State Conservation Area is provided along Berlang and Telowar trails. Being located on higher ground, along ridge lines and spurs, these trails are not expected to provide suitable opportunities for fossickers. Fossicking will not be allowed in Berlang State Conservation Area.

Issues There is limited public access to the parks.
Desired outcomes Any visitor use of the parks is ecologically sustainable.
The parks continue to provide opportunities for nature-based recreation with minimal impact on natural and cultural values." End quote.

That's an interesting statement, given all of the workings and historical artifacts along Bells Creek are on private, fenced land as far as I know. And the main safety risk to visitors would be the landowner who has been known to fire the odd shot at trespassers over the years....

 

[Mackka]

If it was my land, I would shoot and ask questions later. Thats why properties have fences.
Mackka

 

[mbasko]

bundyjd the NPWS have no jurisdiction over the private property so they must have identified something on the small area of Bells Creek running through the SCA?
This is nothing to do with the nearby private property/s or trespassing on them or what anyones personal reaction to trespassing might be. It's about the NPWS Fossicking Policy & how they are now reacting to that in their Plans of Management when opened as drafts for public input.
Trespassing on private property is a whole other issue on its own & it's pretty laughable that those that trespass then complain about the reaction.
I tend to believe, like Detectist above, that NPWS will find any excuse they can no matter how insignificant to block fossicking as an allowable activity.
I was actually optimistic when they first released the fossicking policy but I now really doubt any new areas in National Parks areas will be allowed & once they get a chance they'll try to write it out of the only 2 areas that it is allowed in now.

 

[bundyjd]

bundyjd the NPWS have no jurisdiction over the private property so they must have identified something on the small area of Bells Creek running through the SCA?
This is nothing to do with the nearby private property/s or trespassing on them or what anyones personal reaction to trespassing might be. It's about the NPWS Fossicking Policy & how they are now reacting to that in their Plans of Management when opened as drafts for public input.
Trespassing on private property is a whole other issue on its own & it's pretty laughable that those that trespass then complain about the reaction.
I tend to believe, like Detectist above, that NPWS will find any excuse they can no matter how insignificant to block fossicking as an allowable activity.
I was actually optimistic when they first released the fossicking policy but I now really doubt any new areas in National Parks areas will be allowed & once they get a chance they'll try to write it out of the only 2 areas that it is allowed in now.

Mate, I think you might be missing the point. They are using the fact that the historical workings at Bells Creek haven't been assessed as one of the reasons not to allow fossicking in the wider area. What I'm saying is, that it's irrelevant anyway as to the best of my knowledge it's all on private land. And the current landowner is highly unlikely to permit public access anyway. In other words, yet another red herring by the government.

Just as a side note, heritage aspects of the Bells Creek area were extensively assessed about 20 years ago by the late Dr Barry McGowan from the ANU. One of the members of this forum helped him do it. His work was published back in 2000 in the book The Golden South.

Cheers,
JD

 

[mbasko]

Didn't miss your point bundyjd - pretty sure we're on the same page just the written word can be difficult to convey things at times.
I was just wanting to keep the thread on topic & not go down a "private property/trespassing" path away from NPWS Management Plans. Any historic areas or access to such on private property should be irrelevant in them but as you say it would appear they are using that here. It didn't surprise me - it is disappointing though to see how I believe they'll handle submissions in other areas also.
Thanks for the heads up on that book. Looks a good read I'll keep an eye out for a copy. :Y: