Michael Dowling's Hut
mcccol
Does anyone have any background information on the enclosure of the land around Michael Dowling's Hut in the Budawangs?
I have a vague recollection of some dispute or issues going back nearly a decade. I'm interested in background (even deep background.)
Colin.
mcccol
I dug around in the land titles system and made some enquiries. It appears to me that there is a public right of way just to the north of the hut, and that attempting to enclose it informally may not be something the owner of the adjacent lot has any legal right to do. You aren't trespassing by using a public road, the road runs north and east of that lot, and everyone has a right to make use of it.
Furthermore: A person I presume to be the owner of Lot 27 DP 755944 and by name Geoffrey Norman Woodham has applied to the crown to have the road running north of that property, which is currently crown land, sold to him. That application is still pending, and has not been (and I believe should not be) approved. I have roughly sketched the area in question here: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=205762329415835052766.0004a88e5cba661115f38&msa=0 or http://bit.ly/qVOCfJ
I don't like the idea of road closures like this. For a relative pittance a land owner can appropriate roads and close them to all, effectively wrapping the national park up. I do not believe we should acquiesce in this loss of public amenity and access.
The application file reference is GB06H33 and public objections to the sale and enclosure of the road (which has traditionally provided access to the NW of Morton National Park) may be addressed in the first instance to michell...@lpma.nsw.gov.au and should of course give reasons why the closure is not in the public interest.
I suspect that NPWS is attempting to do what they did with NewHaven Gap ... moving the entrance so far back as to add an inordinate amount of time to any access to that part of the park, and are pretending that the new and longer route is an 'alternative.' I do not believe it serves the public interest, nor do I believe it enhances the wilderness values they purport to serve. I think, rather, that it merely reduces their overheads in track maintenance (by rendering more areas less accessible.)
I have lodged my objections, and you may also wish to.
Colin.
mcccol
mcccol
I've also added a possible alternate in yellow along the Alum Ck firetrail which adds about 3-4km of off-track. For all I know, this closure also possibly effects firefighter access.
Joseph Mack
> Although I seem to be the only person who gives a tuppeny toss about it,
I didn't know about it and the maps you've provided represent a lot of work
Thanks Joe
SUBW '70s
--
Joseph Mack NA3T EME(B,D), FM05lw North Carolina
jmack (at) wm7d (dot) net - azimuthal equidistant map
generator at http://www.wm7d.net/azproj.shtml
Homepage http://www.austintek.com/ It's GNU/Linux!
Joseph Mack
> Although I seem to be the only person who gives a tuppeny toss about it,
The problem is that people trying to erode principles like freedom of
access have plenty of time and can act whenever the time suites them.
The people who want to protect access have to be ever vigilant or next
time they come by, they'll see a sign blocking their way.
Bushwalkers are happy to enjoy the wilderness, but protecting it is left
to the few. Ham radio operators are much the same. It seems that only
people with guns are prepared to fight for their hobby. I got little
reaction here when I brought up the proposed Emirates resort at the
Garden of Stone. I don't know what happened to the Clarence Colliery and
sand in the Wollangambie problem but that was a major concern amongst
some people for a while.
Does Keith Muir at the Colong Foundation know about Dowling's Hut?
In May 2008 Martin Geliot <martin...@yahoo.com.au> did a lot of work
for a submission to the SCA (Sydney Catchment Area) to allow better
access for bushwalker to the Warragamba catchment area. It was a single
person job.
I expect if anything is going to happen, that you'll have to do
something like Martin did and it yourself. People afterwards will thank
you for it, but you'll have to do the work upfront. I'll be happy to
sign anything you submit, or proof read anything you produce.
David Morrison
wrote:
> mcccol wrote:
> > Although I seem to be the only person who gives a tuppeny toss about it,
>
> The problem is that people trying to erode principles like freedom of
> access have plenty of time and can act whenever the time suites them.
> The people who want to protect access have to be ever vigilant or next
> time they come by, they'll see a sign blocking their way.
It's more than this. It is knowing that there is a threat in the first
place. So while the work you have done is valuable, equally important is
letting as many people as possible know, particularly groups who are
used to fighting this sort of battle. And as Joseph says, be prepared to
work with these people.
I'm not sure where else you have raised this issue, but I would suggest
that aus.bushwalking has hardly any readers nowadays. Most have moved to
the forums at bushwalk.com.
But more than that, organisations with skills and resources to fight
battles like this need to know. Joseph suggested the Colong Foundation.
You could also contact the National Parks Association, the Confederation
of Bushwalking Clubs (http://www.bushwalking.org.au/Officers.html),
various environmental and nature groups, even bushwalking clubs
directly. For that matter, even groups local to the area might have a
view, eg, bushfire brigades may want the road kept open for fire
fighting.
Good luck
mcccol
Colin.
Joseph Mack
> I'm not sure where else you have raised this issue, but I would suggest
> that aus.bushwalking has hardly any readers nowadays. Most have moved to
> the forums at bushwalk.com.
I had no idea that everyone had moved. I knew the number of postings had
dropped a while ago, but attributed it to Springy not posting anymore.
I'd assumed that people just didn't have much to say. I've just spent
the last couple of hours reviewing the postings to bushwalk.com.
Thanks Joe
SUBW '70's
David Morrison
wrote:
> David Morrison wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure where else you have raised this issue, but I would suggest
> > that aus.bushwalking has hardly any readers nowadays. Most have moved to
> > the forums at bushwalk.com.
>
> I had no idea that everyone had moved. I knew the number of postings had
> dropped a while ago, but attributed it to Springy not posting anymore.
> I'd assumed that people just didn't have much to say. I've just spent
> the last couple of hours reviewing the postings to bushwalk.com.
The trolls and spammers are succeeding in making USEnet irrelevant,
unfortunately. I still prefer the capabilities of a good newsreader to
forum software, but there is little choice in my areas of interest now.
Curiously, it seems even the trolls have given up, as there has been
hardly any junk here for ages. Overseas groups don't seem to have quite
the same problem, implying that us Aussies are responsible :-(
Joseph Mack
> The trolls and spammers are succeeding in making USEnet irrelevant,
> unfortunately.
I'm in the US and most of the nntp servers were shut down a couple of
years ago as the ISPs and politicians said they were havens for porn. I
can't imagine that the total amount of porn changed as a result, however
it cut down on postings to newsgroups and aus.bushwalking was the last
one I was subscribing to.
> I still prefer the capabilities of a good newsreader to
> forum software, but there is little choice in my areas of interest now.
yes I much prefer the format of newsgroups. However I'm very pleased, as
of your posting, to find where everyone has gone.
Joe
SUBW '70s
David Morrison
> of your posting, to find where everyone has gone.
Probably needs a regular posting as some other newsgroups that have
moved do. And also glad you found out!
Cheers
David