This has been a topic of much discussion amongst Tasmania's walkers and wilderness enthusiasts. Perhaps unsurprisingly, opposition to the Tarkine road is fairly uniform.

A recent outburst by Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett, to my mind, went to the heart of the whole attitude around wilderness, development, tourism, etc.

"What's the point of having the Tarkine, if you won't let anyone see it?"

What's the point of something, if humans can't "have" it? Should wilderness be allowed to exist for its own sake, or should it only be there for the use and enjoyment of humans?

A recent camping trip to Arthur River, in close proximity to the Tarkine, starkly demonstrated to me the detrimental effects of vehicle access to a wilderness area: Dirt bikes, quad bikes, generators, noise, rubbish, etc.

That's not to say that walkers are all pure and virtuous - the times I've come across food wrappers or scraps of toilet paper in remote areas are incredibly disappointing - but the relative impacts of walkers as opposed to vehicles are much, much smaller.

For myself, I tend to think that wilderness areas are best left largely alone, although very carefully managed; minimising the impact of humans. If that means not building roads, so be it.

Of course, I'm lucky: I'm not exactly fit, but I do have the wherewithal to see some of our wild places on foot. That said, there are places that I may never visit. I'm happy with that. As long as I know they're there, I don't care whether I get to see them or not.

I may never climb Mount Everest, but I'm not going to demand that the Gummint installs an elevator, just so I can.

This is a vexing issue. I think it is good that urbanites have a chance to see wilderness areas but in such a way as to preserve its character.
Maybe the answer is to make it moderately difficult but not too difficult. Forestry Tasmania also run the risk of a backlash if the road enables the public to see more clearfelled areas. As always it is just the small minority who leave litter, make hidden campfires and rev up dirt bikes you can hear kilometres away. I doubt that the road will bring many 'average' tourists. In my opinion the project should be shelved and the money spent elsewhere.

I think you're being way too soft on this one. In fact anyone wishing to visit Tasmania should have to swim there, after all, if you want to rub elbows with the Tasmanian bush walker royalty, you really should prove your worth.

I'd also ask all the Tasmanian bush royalty to swim to the Australian mainland if they ever want to visit, and walk to Ayers Rock sustained by only eating food they brought with them that they grew themselves of course.

I understand your horror of people only having to walk for 30 minutes when a 3 day walk is available, unbelieveable! The things you have to put up with are just awful. Perhaps you could get one of your senators to raise this as a private members bill to force people to walk for as long as you mandate, would 6 weeks be OK?

As for people having motorbikes in the bush, well, you should be allowed to ban them or jail them or something, what next, do they think it's a free country where different people can persue their own goals! It's clearly your private property isn't it? I could understand the trail bike riders if it was crown land and not illegal, but clearly that's not correct, since it is apparant it is Tasmanian bush walker territory.

Only you should be allowed to say what people can do in the bush, good grief, next thing they'll expect democracy.

(Lighten up folks, you have to share, it's there for all Australians not just you. Australians can enjoy the bush in any number of ways, not just your particular chosen way. I imagine trail bike riders do have fun you know, as do all kinds of bush users. If it's getting too crowded, tough, that's the price you pay in Australia for an increasing population, get used to it.)

I think you should lighten up yourself rpg. Nobody is saying everywhere should be available for walkers, just as everywhere shouldn't necessarily be available for bikes, cars etc. It's all about balance.

I don't think that Uluru is a good comparision - you should think before you write - there is much good, and lengthy, walking in the centre of Australia(Larapinta Trail etc).

Your apparent horror of actually using your own legs to travel doesn't have to lead to the selfish attitude that everywhere should be available to your preferred form of transport...does it?

Did you read the article Phil? It's exactly what is being said, that the Tarken should be restricted to walkers only and the author bemoans the ease of access and other forms of bush users.

What's balance to you may not be to me or other users.

Ayers Rock is the comparison made in the article.

Why do you think I have horror at using my own legs? (I trek in many places in the world not just Australia and enjoy it.) I do respect other people's use of resources, I may not like trail bikes, but they are not illegal, are they? (Would you like them to be?)

I am taking the p*ss out of holier than thou bushwalkers who have selfish attitudes.

I'm not trying to be houlier-than-thou at all, rpg; in fact, I personally despise the "extreme" walker types, all decked out with the most ostentatiously expensive gear they can lay their hands on.

That said, have you ever seen the damage that vehicles can do to the bush? I shudder to think of the Tarkine torn into a muddy, rutted wasteland, looking like some Western Front battlefont, just so people can "experience the wilderness" from the comfort of their car.