https://www.ozervnews.com

No Jim NPWS should not desecrate the forests, just remove all the trees that their own arborists have deemed to be unsafe for caravan parks where they are currently threatening the lives of all who may camp under them.

dream4red wrote:No Jim NPWS should not desecrate the forests, just remove all the trees that their own arborists have deemed to be unsafe for caravan parks where they are currently threatening the lives of all who may camp under them.

Therein lies the problem. Nobody really knows when one of those branches is going to fall. Recent event perfect example. But if some of us want National Parks to be free (because we own them), who is going to pay the wages of the arborist/s and those who will cut down the branches?

BTW, previous post was TIC.

Jim the overseas tourists of course

Dot wrote:Jim the overseas tourists of course

So, it would appear that if you were to travel overseas you'd be more than happy to pay for the ongoing care of their national parks?

Jim, I don't know if you are aware that the two parks mentioned are run as real businesses. The bloody campers pay market rates to stay in these campsites. They are both quite expensive to stay in and you mostly have to provide your own accommodation ie a tent , van or bus. So perhaps the exorbitant site fees that are demanded would pay for the trees that the arborists have already been and seen and declared to be dangerous, to be totally removed from the areas of concern. It is not for the poor overworked taxpaying public to pay for, just the user pays system that is so prevalent in this world.

Jim wrote:

Dot wrote:Jim the overseas tourists of course

So, it would appear that if you were to travel overseas you'd be more than happy to pay for the ongoing care of their national parks?

yes but I don't go to national parks too dangerous, what with trees, bears, tigers etc etc then there are the bandits and poachers so no thanks think I shall apply to be an indig from my friend who is an elder and that way I can get everywhere for free.. And you lot thought I was just a pretty fat face didn't yu's

dream4red wrote:Jim, I don't know if you are aware that the two parks mentioned are run as real businesses. The bloody campers pay market rates to stay in these campsites. They are both quite expensive to stay in and you mostly have to provide your own accommodation ie a tent , van or bus. So perhaps the exorbitant site fees that are demanded would pay for the trees that the arborists have already been and seen and declared to be dangerous, to be totally removed from the areas of concern. It is not for the poor overworked taxpaying public to pay for, just the user pays system that is so prevalent in this world.

It has been mentioned before that these trees are widow makers - and they have a mind of their own. They can be examined as okay today and fall tomorrow. Unless you know of experts that can accurately predict that happening, this type of thing will always continue despite the effort put in so that it doesn't.

But I was actually referring to NSW NP's which are not run as a caravan park.

Dot wrote:

Jim wrote:

Dot wrote:Jim the overseas tourists of course

So, it would appear that if you were to travel overseas you'd be more than happy to pay for the ongoing care of their national parks?

yes but I don't go to national parks too dangerous, what with trees, bears, tigers etc etc then there are the bandits and poachers so no thanks think I shall apply to be an indig from my friend who is an elder and that way I can get everywhere for free.. And you lot thought I was just a pretty fat face didn't yu's

Never underestimate the mind of a woman... they change it regularly.

Simple solution to the tree problem: DON'T park under them! Duh...