Victorian cachers (Australia) - new regulations a problem?

[+Team_GeoFerret]

Came across this petition and wondered if anyone here is aware of the situation? Apparently Victorian hikers may be fined for heading off the trail, swimming in a non-sanctioned river or climbing on non-sanctioned rocks!!  What the??  Last I checked, activities like geocaching and wild swimming are extremely low impact to the environment, so this appears to be an overreach at first glance.

 

https://www.change.org/p/victoria-state-government-don-t-take-away-our-rights-to-parks

 

I've not read the official docs yet, but I am interested in the community perspective.  Is this "nanny state" to the extreme, or am I missing something?  I'm going to contact geocaching.com support and see if I can find out how many Victorian caches would be far enough "off-trail" to be a risk

[+Goldenwattle]

Never heard of this. Sounds crazy! We wander all over nature reserves in the ACT, going off trail. Some of it is serious, thickly, forested mountain country too. (I leave the toughest parts to (younger) others.)

 

Out geocaching in the bush, off trail. I took the picture. If this proposal goes ahead, this won't be allowed in Victoria.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+cerberus1]

Wow...  Are these elected officials doing this?  May be time for a change...

We have some who have been micro-managing the little people for some time (I'm hoping it gets fixed later this year).

It starts somewhere maybe unnoticed, goes on a while, then this nonsense happens and it's just enough to wake folks up.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Wow...  Are these elected officials doing this?  May be time for a change...

Do you mean elected politicians? We don't elect police chiefs, etc*. People are hired for their qualifications in the normal interviewing way for the job.

 

* Is this done anywhere outside of the USA.

[+barefootjeff]

That's sad to see. Curiously, I've had a cache approved by NSW national parks (GC831AR) that's a few hundred metres beyond the end of the fire trail and accessed through open forest with a bit of a rock scramble - yes, climbing on rocks! - at the end. That one went through in quick time with no questions raised, I just emailed the ranger with the location description and a bunch of photos, she said it looked okay so I sent in the formal application and it came back with the Regional Director's signature and stamp of approval a few weeks later.

 

By contrast, one I'm currently trying to get approved is right next to the Great North Walk (about 15 metres to the side of the track across mostly rock) on level ground with no climbing on rocks or anything else needed. I did a site visit with the ranger in June but still haven't received an answer either way, the concern being some cliffs in the vicinity but not close to the cache.

[+Brain]

On 10/10/2022 at 11:53 PM, Team_GeoFerret said:

I've not read the official docs yet

Well that'd be a good place to start.

 

All of the documentation is available at https://engage.vic.gov.au/MRP_Regulations

This already got a bit of coverage in a NewsCorp article that did the rounds in the local GC FB groups, so I'll repost what I said there (usual disclaimer that I'm not a law expert and have come to this conclusion purely from reading the proposed legislation).

The regulation we're all worried about is 407 which reads:

Quote

407 - Crossing area by way other than identified track prohibited
(1) The land manager by determination may set aside an area of a park as a track for walking or riding.
(2) A person must not, in a park, leave a track set aside for walking or riding under subregulation (1).
Penalty: 5 penalty units

What "by determination" means is set out in regulation 201.
 

Quote

201 - Determinations setting areas aside
(1) If the land manager is authorised to make a set aside determination under these Regulations, the determination must be in writing.
(2) A set aside determination under these Regulations may specify—
(a) that it applies to the whole or a specified area of a park; and
(b) that it applies on specified days, times or periods; and
(c) that it applies to a class of person, vehicle, vessel or aircraft.
(d) any conditions subject to which that activity or conduct specified in the set aside determination must or must not be carried out.
(3) If the land manager makes a set aside determination under these Regulations, the land manager must cause signs or notice of the determination and the conditions they must comply with, to be displayed.

So, in effect, 407 only applies to tracks that have specifically been set aside by park managers for ONLY walking or riding which, as per 201(3), must have signs along the lines of "don't go off the track" so a cache wouldn't even be published there in the first place.
And, as another detail, 407 is copied verbatim from Crown Land Reserves (Phillip Island Nature Park) Regulations 2010 - so this has already been the case on Phillip Island for 12 years and caches have been hidden in those areas just fine.

TL;DR - Don't stress, it's only for tracks with a "don't go off track" sign next to them where you shouldn't be hiding caches anyway.

[+Team_GeoFerret]

12 hours ago, Brain said:

So, in effect, 407 only applies to tracks that have specifically been set aside by park managers for ONLY walking or riding which, as per 201(3), must have signs along the lines of "don't go off the track" so a cache wouldn't even be published there in the first place.
And, as another detail, 407 is copied verbatim from Crown Land Reserves (Phillip Island Nature Park) Regulations 2010 - so this has already been the case on Phillip Island for 12 years and caches have been hidden in those areas just fine.

TL;DR - Don't stress, it's only for tracks with a "don't go off track" sign next to them where you shouldn't be hiding caches anyway.

One of the concerns that has been raised in various places is the quite simple idea that Parks could change the existing signs so that every track has a "don't go off the track" statement, much like many tracks have no 4WD, motorbike, horse or MTB permitted, and the only sign required is at the track entry points.  While I don't disagree with you, it's also very broadly worded and provides Parks with all the opportunity for making changes without any further consultation.  This move is also bringing more regional locations into the mix, where pedestrian traffic is much lower impact outside of the popular spots.  I don't buy that just because there are prior examples makes any of these moves reasonable or appropriate.  Now that I have had a chance to read the docs, I'm more concerned than less - it's being sold under the banner of "harmonisation", but it's actually extending power and controls, while leaving parks users with very little opportunity for recourse.  I don't miss the years I spent consulting in state and fed government - maybe I've been on the inside of these processes too many times to simply be relaxed and not stress, or maybe I'm just more cynical.

[+Brain]

17 hours ago, Team_GeoFerret said:

One of the concerns that has been raised in various places is the quite simple idea that Parks could change the existing signs so that every track has a "don't go off the track" statement

Thought about pre-emptively including my FB response to this in the original post lol, here it is now anyway:

 

I highly doubt that sort of thing would exist outside of a slippery slope fallacy.
If new signs do start popping up as a direct result of this legislation passing, then my guess would be that it would be a unique case in a certain park with some overzealous management.
Historically, Parks Victoria (who are the land managers for the majority of parks in the scope of these regulations) have been supportive of geocaching and other similar hobbies, so it'd greatly surprise me if they were to unduly restrict it through these measures.

 

And, in addition to that, I'm not sure where the "banner of 'harmonisation'" is hung from; the regulations seem strangely transparent about aiming to "provide a consistent approach [...] for better management of parks" to update the rules for the modern era from what appears to be quite the patchwork of old legislation. But maybe I'm just more optimistic 

Will be mighty interesting to see which way it goes at any rate, and I would be genuinely intrigued to hear of any instance where Parks shuts off their tracks just because these regulations let them do it.

[+DARKSIDEDAN]

Very interesting