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.

Perhaps we interpreted the article differently rpg. This is quite likely given our views.

When I talk about balance...I mean that some areas should be put aside for different types of activity. It's not about trying to fit all types of activity, or access, into one area - that approach merely dilutes the experience for all.

In my opinion, balance is saying that - OK, this area can be put aside for wilderness, and another area can be developed for beach resorts, another for semi-rural activites such as wine and food tourism, another for cultural tourism, another for urban development, another for agriculture etc. Many of of these may be able to co-exist too.

However, the trick is to understand that some activities do not co-exist very well. For example, a walk track through a forest is unlikely to impact on the enjoyment of car drivers driving through the forest, however, a road will impact on the enjoyment that bushwalkers get from being out in the wilderness. If you put the two together you are impacting far more on the walkers than the drivers. That is why many are so passionate about keeping roads out of wilderness areas if this is possible.

I don't do much walking any more, but I want there to be wilderness areas for others to go walking in. Perhaps it is a losing battle...but it is a battle worth fighting.

Don't be too hard on the poor walkers, RPG, after all, if someone puts a road in, they will be forced to walk along the edge of it. They could never use a different trail.

Besides, where's the skite value in claiming to have been somewhere that other mere mortals can get to.

As an old bloke, who can not manage more than a few hundred yards on foot, don't I have any "rights" now, well not with this mob, anyway. The fact that I was too busy paying for their schooling to go before, when I could walk, has nothing to do with it.

I don't like trail bikes much either, but to turn a whole bl@@dy forrest into a muddy battle field, get real.

I know, I'll take my hores. I may stay in the nsw/vic high country instead, as I'm not welcome in Tasy. But, hang on, my horse is being excluded from there too. May be some walker trod in his droppings, & that would never do.

If there is anything contaminating the wilderness, it's these smug yobs, stay away, it may be catching.

Hasbeen - there is nothing more enjoyable than being out in the wild with on a horse, but.....

Locally in the ACT or NSW I can take a horse just about anywhere. I can camp out where I choose with 4 legged transport. So I don't think I need to take a horse into the Tarkine. There are other places to go - most of that is already sadly degraded and altered.

Wilderness has value other than that which walkers give it as a recreation area. It has conservation value. By carving a road into pristine areas, we give feral predators and weeds the same access that we give the cars and people.

Bushwalkers hopefully are aware of the impact that they can have, thought they don't always behave impecably. A road though, is a highway for other things into Wilderness areas other than people, and should be avoided unless truly necessary.

Ps down in Tassie, try the Narawntapu National Park. Nice horse yards and the best beach anywhere in Australia!

Good article, gets it pretty right. I live in Tas, am a walker, horse rider and have friends who ride quad bikes. They have ample area's to use their bikes and appreciate pristine wilderness, however there are those who would go anywhere they could and bugger the consequences. As well as those who would lock up everything, for what reason I don't know. We have the extension of the national horse trail from top to bottom and many great and testing areas we can ride. It's the wilderness area's which are out of bounds and I don't know a Tassie trail rider who disagrees, but accept there would be some.

Tassie is one of the last islands in the world which has the chance to retain it's environment and use it to show the world how it's done. That would have huge economic benefits for us, unlike the approaches of forestry and the lab/lib slaves of the ruling corporate junta.

In Tas, there are bays with magnificent beaches only reached by sea, it's a rare experience in this dying world of ours. Not only is the Tarkine facing problems, but so it the Tasman peninsula. Down there, they have a magnificent coastal walk which is about 5-7 days. It takes you along some of the highest sea cliffs in the Southern Hemisphere, magnificent bays and wildlife. The vested interests want to privatise it and put exclusive resorts along the trail accessed by helicopter as its in national park.

But who cares, as long as the urban cowboys can get their kicks, that's all that counts.

The article doesn't say it, but my understanding is that almost all of the planned Tarkine road already exists as various bush tracks and that the new road will be a major upgrading of them with some new linkages. Unless I've got this wrong, this is somewhat different to the impression given that this is a new road being bulldozed into the wilderness.

As a former Tasmanian resident and frequent visitor for the purposes of bushwalking and trout fishing, I can certainly understand the sentiments most often expressed here. However, I am constantly bemused by 'environmentalists' who claim that Tasmania's future rests on tourism, but who then refuse to countenance the forms of tourism that are most likely to make significant dollars - ie. 'state of the art' eco-accommodation linked to spectacular natural features a la Freycinet and Cradle Mountain.

Personally I avoid those areas (too many tourists!), but they are where the money is - whereas most tourism authorities regard undeveloped wilderness as generally attracting cheap tourists only on a seasonal basis who arrive with all their equipment and spend relatively little. If this is to underpin the economic future of Tasmania it is going to be pretty bleak.

Surely its not impossible to have both. The Tasmanian central plateau area provides a good precedent where the internationally significant Overland Track with developed huts and facilities at each end sits comfortably alongside undeveloped wilderness where you may go days without seeing a person although the tourist dollars are being spent just a few kilometres away. The Tarkine appears to be big enough for to suit a similar approach.

Peter

Thanks for that. But there is no hope. I refer you to

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8057

The Tarkine is hardly pristine wilderness although the majority is now in National Parks and conservation areas.

According to the National Estate listing it is about 350,000 hectares and is between the Arthur and Pieman Rivers, and extends from the West Coast inland almost to the Murchison Highway.

In the heart of the Tarkine is Tasmania’s largest open cut mine at Savage River, with an iron ore slurry pipeline extending to the Northern coast. The roads into the mine and along the pipeline are just some of the thousands of kilometres of roads that riddle the area.

The loop road proposal is to upgrade and seal of 127 km of existing gravel roads and build a new 5.4 km link. Much of the Tarkine Drive will be north of the National Estate Boundary. The new road will be outside the extensive conservation reserves.

The most important of these reserves is the Savage River National Park and regional reserve. The rainforest located on the Savage River Plateau is the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia.

Despite a major aim to provide for tourism and recreational opportunities within the regional reserve while maintaining the national park as a core wilderness area, visitor numbers as so low they are not even counted.

Instead tourists and bushwalkers access the area from the South at Corrina using the mining road or the “Fat Man” barge, and by the Western Explorer road in the west.

The Tarkine is difficult to locate on a map; the National Estate listing describes it only in words. The original study was of the NW forests by a taxpayer funded grant to a green lobby group. An AHC consultant (who also had the dual role of being one of the authors of the report) named the file the Tarkine, the English misspelling of the name of one of three Aboriginal groups in the area.

So sealing a part of the northern roads might put the region on the map and create the much needed 1600 jobs predicted as a result of the increased visitor activity