|
Queensland Environmental Minister Dean Wells has doggedly persevered
with the closures of tracts on Fraser Island to vehicular access
regardless of a strong public outcry and a long history of
objections.
The
only public explanation he gave for his unwavering stance on recent
closures were that they:
-
Were recommended by the Great Sandy Region Management Plan [GSRMP];
-
Fulfilling zoning requirements for the GSRMP;
-
Would help conserve the island's World Heritage-listed natural
attractions;
-
Would have little impact on visitors' enjoyment of Fraser Island;
and
-
Would improve visitor safety and enjoyment.
Friends of Fraser Inc. [FOF] believe these justifications are
insufficient and fundamentally flawed.
Firstly!
the GSRMP and its "zoning requirements" are out of date.
The plan itself stipulated that it should be reviewed within five
years of its :gazettal" which was in 1994.
FOF
believe this would have provided the opportunity for everyone to
express their concerns about current management strategies arising
from that plan.
Orchid Beach Community and Recreation Association president Clyde
Coombs, who has actively pursued the government for a review of the
GSRMP, said there was still no clear indication of when the review
would be done. "It's supposed to be widely advertised, it is
supposed to have a lot of input from all different sections of the
community........everyone is just waiting to see when it's going to
be announced".
Bundaberg City councillor and Orchid Beach land owner, David Porter
said he had believed that no further closures would take place
without the "ongoing process" of "public consultation" which again
the plan itself stipulated. "Now that hasn't happened, there has
been no public consultation since the last round of closures to this
one".
Secondly!
FOF believes that management directives outlined in the GSRMP to
help "conserve" Fraser Island's World Heritage listed natural
attractions are based on a lack of scientific investigation and
evidence; it believes that current closures could simply shift
impact to other areas of conservation concern; and, it believes that
money spent on the closures could be better spent in areas of higher
conservation priority.
FOF
president Bobbie Monks said she had specifically asked Dean Wells
"what scientific evidence they [the Department of Environment] used
to continue on with these closures" and said "they [the Department
of Environment] admitted they haven't got any". She said in her
personal view, the closures should not have gone ahead until
research had been done.
FOF member Shirley Crawford, who has
an undergraduate degree in Soil and Water Management through the
University of Queensland and a Masters degree in ecological
management from Adelaide
University, said in this respect the management plan was "a joke".
There is no scientific basic at all......I see this management plan
as being based on what people want and not what is scientifically
sound or ecologically sustainable". She went on to say, regarding
the Platypus Bay closures, that she was concerned that any visitor
impact would simply be shifted. "People are going to get to that
area if they want to so it is going to put more pressure on the
other access roads. From South Wathumba you would need to go across
a swampy area to get to that Platypus Bay beach area. Those areas
are the natural fisheries, the natural nursery area. You are also
going to have people coming over from Hervey Bay in water taxis [for
example]. There will be increased water traffic which will disrupt
the sea life, including migrating whales in that area. "So you are
moving the impact - you are not stopping
an impact".
Friends of the Earth Maryborough president Ross Daniels supported
these concerns and said that primarily his organisation was opposed
to the closures because the shutting down of one beach would simply
add more pressure to other beaches.
Several members of FOF said that they believed further studies and
plans had shown the impact of beach driving on Fraser Island to be
minimal compared to that of large 4WDing on inland tracks. These
studies and reports also found, for example, that camping impact in
the northwest area of Fraser Island was "low" and that Platypus Bay
Road [specifically] was not "over used". They cannot understand why
the government would spend money on implementing the current
closures when it has recommendations such as in the Final report of
the review of tourism activities in the Great Sandy Region of May
1998 which states: "The greatest immediate need is to address the
inability of numerous sites to handle existing levels of visitation.
it is felt that any actions which could potentially increase
visitation, before appropriate infrastructure is in place, will
exacerbate the existing situation".
FOF sees that the closures could "exacerbate the existing situation"
by "potentially increasing visitation" in these other "numerous
sites".
FOF assistant secretary David Farley said the whole situation begged
the question of why the Department of Environment was closing an
area where it appeared the damage was minimal, when there were far
greater management issues in more heavily used areas. Clyde Coombs
concurred: " Let the money they have allocated for this go to other
and better uses on the island".
Thirdly!
FOF believes that the closures of
Platypus Bay Road, the beach between Platypus Bay Road and Wathumba
Spit, the beach from Sandy Cape Lighthouse to Rooney Point and the
closure of South Waddy Beach will impact considerably on "visitors'
enjoyment of Fraser Island" and that they pose serious safety
issues.
Several members of FOF said they could not understand the logic of
implementing the Platypus Bay closure, when further investigation
showed visitor impact in the area was low. They said the 1998
tourist activities report recognised that Fraser North was primarily
accessed by "free and independent travelers' [FITs] and stated that
"the higher use of Fraser North by FITs users may reflect a
deliberate choice to seek out more natural and remote settings away
from the high use areas located in Fraser Southeast and Fraser
Southwest".
Bobbie Monks described the closures as
"discrimination". Although access for walkers would remain, the
"remoteness" that closures had enforced on many areas meant access
would be limited to the strong, fit and healthy. She said some of
the remote areas would be more than a days' walk and would require
carrying excessive provisions such as substantial water supplies,
food and camping gear.
Access had now been effectively denied to a whole cross section of
the broader community such as the elderly, the disabled and families
with young children.
In the case of north Fraser Island it
was also a concern that, without regular patrols, this imposed
remoteness could leave walkers, who underestimated the conditions,
stranded. It could also become a target to undesirable elements or
practices.
Clyde Coombs described it as "a
potential danger area if you can't get vehicle access". Property
owner David Porter said he was deeply concerned by the closures of
Platypus Bay Road which was the only access to a safe swimming beach
at north Fraser. he said he was wary of putting children in the
eastern surf beach because of "the surf, the sharks, the rips, [and]
the traffic". "Its not a safe beach - its not safe at all. There is
no other option for beach swimming".
Environment Minister Wells did point
out during closure announcements that vehicle access
to the western beach would continue to be available between
Wathumba Creek and Moon Point. However, this is one of the most
difficult areas of the island to traverse according to Orchid Beach
garage part owner Bill Bennett. Bill said he had done numerous
vehicle recoveries from the western beach which had a "record of
very hazardous driving conditions". In contrast to this he said in
his nine years as part-owner of the Orchid Beach garage he had never
had to "pull anyone out" of the northwest beach area. Bill first
started coming to Fraser Island about 30 years ago and has lived on
the island for the past 20 years. He summed up the feeling of many
FOF members by saying:
"They are quite safe beaches. They are
beaches where family groups go, more so than anybody else. There is
very, very little traffic over there. People tend to go over there
and set up a little picnic spot. It is
for day visitation mainly. You might get one, two or three camps a
year over there. I used to take my grandkids over there and spend a
day with them when they came up because they are only small.... "I
just can't understand why they would want to take this away from
Australian families". 
|
