Use it or lose it

Submitted: Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 17:30
ThreadID: 76488 Views:2327 Replies:4 FollowUps:7
This Thread has been Archived
New National Parks

Better get in quick before the barriers start going up.

Regards
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: pop2jocem - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 17:51

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 17:51
Look on the bright side Gramps, more National Parks means more jobs in the various park authorities across Oz. Maybe we could score a park ranger job and get paid to drive around in them all day counting gum trees........(;-))


Cheers Pop
AnswerID: 406913

Follow Up By: Gramps - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 17:54

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 17:54
Pop,

LOL pity I don't quite have the right background for NSW NPWS.

Regards
0
FollowupID: 676725

Reply By: ben_gv3 - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:33

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:33
How is this a bad thing? Less logging and more National Parks? Unless of course they close off the National Parks to any form of access.
AnswerID: 406929

Follow Up By: Gramps - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:48

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:48
"In an announcement which has failed to get the support of either environmental groups or loggers, Mr Sartor said ...... "

That poses some interesting questions to start with LOL

I did'nt say it was necessarily a bad thing. But, when areas go from State Forest, virtually unrestricted access and FREE, to National Parks, restricted access and user PAYS, it sometimes tends to be bad.

Regards
0
FollowupID: 676751

Follow Up By: Marny - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 22:14

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 22:14
I agree Gramps. I HATE paying to get into places that i allready pay for. I am really starting to dislike the NPWS
0
FollowupID: 676790

Follow Up By: Member - Barry (NT) - Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:35

Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:35
agree Marny and Gramps

but what gets up our nose is paying $21 per night in NSW natinal parks (off peak rate too) and getting toilets that don't flush (eco type fitted in many places) and nothing else

ranger told us 2 weeks ago they have to charge so they don't upset local caravan parks

I can't swear here but guess what I'm thinking???????????
0
FollowupID: 676888

Reply By: Member - Scrubby (VIC) - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:48

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:48
It will no doubt contribute to bigger and more fierce bush fires if they are managed anything like Victoria`s NP`s.

Regards

Scrubby.
I don`t know where i`m going but i`m enjoying the journey.

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 406931

Follow Up By: Gramps - Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:51

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010 at 19:51
Scrubby,

I don't think anyone could seriously argue against that statement.

Regards
0
FollowupID: 676752

Follow Up By: Honky - Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:51

Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:51
And more reasons to blame it on climate change.

Honky
0
FollowupID: 676853

Follow Up By: Member - Timbo - Friday, Mar 05, 2010 at 21:03

Friday, Mar 05, 2010 at 21:03
They're not called "National Sparks and Wildfire Service" for nothing.
0
FollowupID: 677369

Reply By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:13

Wednesday, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:13
G'day Gramps,

It seems to be a State trend in QLD also. Convert large parcels of land to NP's and kick out lessees in some cases all in the name of the greater good. Unfortunately whilst it looks good on the surface they realise later that they don't actually have the resources to manage the additional responsibilities. I can only assume this will mean less access as they can't guarantee safety and facilities (and we don't want them to make it unsafe do we?). So I'm in agreement with your conclusion!

The greenies will be happy because it is their objective to keep it untouched. Must be an election year and they need some green preferences - I know very cynical of me!

Kind regards
AnswerID: 407034

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)