How do you feel about the way SHNP is currently managed?
by Project Coordinator 12:53pm, 5 August 2009Are you a park neighbour? A regular user? What kinds of things are you concerned about? What kinds of things would you like managed differently?
Tonyb Comment 1
11:18pm, 13 August 2009
4
0 
The key issue in managing the park is or should be the protection of biodiversity. All national parks are currently under presure with reduced budgets for bushcare which is the main method of protecting and enhancing habitats. Unless this issue is adressed there will be an ongoing reducion in the quality of bushland in the park and a gradual loss of biodiversity.
Project Coordinator Comment 2
Project Team
10:05am, 14 August 2009
2
0
"COMMENT RECEIVED FROM REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
I think the park should be open to all Australian residents. The park can be leased to government departments such as the Quarantine station but also must allow public access as part of the leasing agreement. The natural wonder of Sydney Harbour National Park should be available to all members of the public and all leasing agreements should reflect this. No charge for access should be part of the leasing agreement.
Project Coordinator Comment 3
Project Team
10:11am, 14 August 2009
5
1
"COMMENT RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
Sydney Harbour National Park is just that, public land and it should be enjoyed by all the public and not leased or rented to private interests with the end result that public land becomes inaccessible to the very people it belongs to..yes...the public!
Sydney Harbour Natinal park is nature in all its exceptional beauty and it should be shared with our children, and our internatinal guests. It should be a place that all Australians and visitors to our shores can visit and enjoy and learn from the experinece. It is an enriching place for all of us to explore and learn from.
I commend National parks not to rent or lease any of sydney National Parks land to private leaseholders and instead let us all enjoy natures wonders.
Wes Comment 3.1
2:29pm, 20 August 2009
3
1
I totally agree! Look what's happened at the Quarantine Station - why can't you just enter and walk around the site? I thought the lease was meant to open up the site to the public - it seems to have done the opposite.
Tony Montana Comment 3.1.1
11:42pm, 11 November 2009
1
1
One big point don't try & do what the Harbour Trust have done. Go the community ,conservational, educational way not the leasing way.
Kelly Comment 3.1.2
9:19am, 10 January 2010
0
1
Seriously, you need to actually visit the Quarantine Station &/or take your blinkers off.
Wes Comment 3.1.2.1
3:27pm, 6 July 2010
0
0
Sure if I book and pay money. What about free access to all. It is our public land after all! Blinkers are definitely off honey!
interested_sydneysider Comment 3.2
10:47pm, 3 September 2009
2
1
While the principle seems reasonable, the reality doesn't add up.
Parts of our wonderful national parks are not only the natural but the cultural assets within. To maintain an historic building or feature for for preservations sake is a very expensive exercise, and one in which can place great strain on an already limited budget.
I previously worked for an organisation that was opening up lands and leasing old historic buildings. If done and managed correctly this can be a very effective way of restoring and maintaining the character and history of those assets, and they will therefore be aspects of our national parks that we can enjoy rather than see fall into ruin over time.
To give myself away as to what previous organisation I worked for, I'd encourage you to go to Chowder Bay and Georges Heights in Mosman to see how this can be done well.
The only exception to this is the Q Station. This has potentially gone too far to the extreme and little to no emphasis has been allowed for public access. This is simply an exercise in deriving as much revenue as possible out of a site.
Adaptive reuse is not always the answer, but should definitely be considered as an option at times.
redondo Comment 4
11:16am, 18 August 2009
3
0
More Rangers to enforce the rules would be good.
roundup Comment 5
8:41am, 20 August 2009
4
0
While recognising that there are other views to be considered I think that "management" is failing in terms of removing invasive weeds from the (Southern) SHNP. I can't speak for the northern side.
I volunteer with Bushcare in"the Shire" and I take visitors to walk the southern SHNP. They mostly don't know a weed from a wattle, but I do and I am extremely embarassed by the lousy quality of the flora along the walk from South Head to Rose Bay.
My suggestion is simple: every "manager" should spend 25% of their time actually getting their hands dirty, in particular getting the invasive weeds removed.
If all the "management" does is review surveys and write applications for funding then years pass with nothing useful happening.
Project Coordinator Comment 6
Project Team
1:09pm, 20 August 2009
1
1
"RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
I take visitors to the Sydney NP. They don't know the difference but I am ashamed at how the whole park is over run with weeds.
Just one person who cares could make a noticable impact on the asparagus fern infestation in the SHNP but nobody seems to do anything much.
miranda Comment 6.1
3:26pm, 24 August 2009
2
0
Are you that one person? There are many volunteer bush regen programs available if you would like the opportuinity to assist the park staff.
roundup Comment 6.1.1
5:13pm, 28 August 2009
2
0
I could be - but it depends on what the NPWS staff are like. I volunteer in another NP in Sydney and it is a continuing exercise in disillusion. For example, after spending half a day digging out weeds and bagging them up I ask "where can I put these"? Answer: "I dunno. Find a bin somewhere." I think they expect us to take it home with us.
I keep turning out, but only because I like the group of vvolunteers.I've learnt to take all my own tools and herbicides because half the time the NPWS mob will have lost the keys to the storage area, or some similar problem like the mug with the key being late for work, etc.
They don't care about wasting our time.
DontShootTheMessenger Comment 6.1.1.1
1:42am, 5 October 2009
0
0
Totally agree, several years ago we were on an extended walk in another NSW NP, on returning to the car park a large NPWS 4WD pulled up and two well-dressed Rangers got out and asked us a few questions about pest species - we asked them had they ever walked down to the River (Shoalhaven), they said no - but one of them had read an article in a WILD magazine!!
... and these are the people 'managing' the area?
Tony Montana Comment 6.1.1.2
11:35pm, 11 November 2009
2
0
Maybe you should volunteer with the staff based at Middle Head Mosman - wonderful friendly team
nicoleshrimpton Comment 6.1.1.3
12:10pm, 23 November 2009
3
0
Speaking of neglect of the SHNP foreshore, Milk Beach, one of Sydney's true jewels, is a total disgrace that falls between the cracks of all bodies - NPWS, Maritime services and local council. All have said, 'it's the other's job.' On any day - and especially after Australia Day! - there are plastic bags full of rubbish 'thoughtfully' tied to the trees by visitors seeking in vain a single rubbish bin. Of course, the argument goes that no rubbish bin means no rubbish, but as the well-documented tons of rubbish cleared manually and daily by the council at Bondi Beach attests, the no-bin policy just does not work. Lady Martin's Beach has one wheelie bin that is always full and sporadically cleared, leaving no room or incentive for extra rubbish to be cleared from the beach itself by the many well-intended beach goers. Milk beach itself is covered in broken glass from centuries of bottles dumped below the water line - again no one's responsibility, the run-off drain is strewn with a sad collection of flotsam and debris, and weeds abound. If someone has the strength, its a perfect Clean Up Australia Day site. I'll be focusing on Rose Bay this year after campaign success last year at Lady Martin's. But Milk Beach, and in fact all the SHNP beaches need a new, clear and responsible rubbish management strategy. These local jewels, for both residents and tourists alike, some of which are accessible only by water, need a designated team to clear and tend them. Milk Beach is a Sydney embarrassment.
Wes Comment 7
2:38pm, 20 August 2009
3
0
I think the recent drive to lease out heritage buildings within the Park to commercial interests has got it all wrong. I would much rather have a National Parks Ranger take me around the Quarantine Station rather than a person in a flouro orange shirt! Why can't the government get some balls and foresight and stop leasing out our sites with inappropriate uses. How about funding the National Parks better and fostering ideas from within?
Tony Montana Comment 7.1
11:36pm, 11 November 2009
1
0
Totally Agree - Stop the leasing out public buildings. Thee are many other solutions.Leasing is a COP OUT
ceegee Comment 8
10:23pm, 20 August 2009
1
1
Efforts should be redoubled to ensure that people walking their dogs or riding mountain bikes are kept our of the SHNP. Increased numbers of people accessing the SHNP via the water on kayaks and other leisure craft should be monitored.
NP&WS staff do a great job but are under resourced
Tom Comment 8.1
1:35pm, 24 August 2009
1
0
I agree about the dogs and mountain bikes, but I am not very worried about kayaks and other unpowered water craft.
Without boats and ships we would not have a harbour, just a gap in the real-estate. The harbour has long been concerned with boats - our ancestors arrived by sea and they described the previous owners fishing from small boats in what we call Sydney Harbour.
Of course noisy, fast, oil-leaking motor craft are another matter!
Project Coordinator Comment 9
Project Team
10:51am, 26 August 2009
0
0
"RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
keep up the good work, preserving and managing national parks so everyone can enjoy them is something that cannot be overlooked.
Project Coordinator Comment 10
Project Team
3:16pm, 7 September 2009
2
0
"COMMENT RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
The staff at National Parks are a delight to work with. Always helpful and provide relevant information to me.
nicoleshrimpton Comment 11
5:12pm, 7 September 2009
3
0
The POM should include a ban on amplified sound in all its national parks, Shark Island being a case in point. The existing POM, created in 1998, states that "visitors are in a national park and should be careful not to cause unacceptable impact." As it now stands, the allowance of amplified sound is left to the discretion of the NPWS. Shark Island has been rented out increasingly over the last two years to organisers using amplified sound, creating completely unacceptable and controversial noise levels for those on, off and around the island. The 1998 POM states the "most appreciated features of the park are the peace and quiet and the views." Clearly commercial decisions have been allowed to override these values. All those in favour of an amplified ban for national parks, please reply to this comment.
Nicole Shrimpton and Marina Shipton
Residents against amplified sound on Shark Island
Project Coordinator Comment 12
Project Team
3:32pm, 16 September 2009
3
0
"COMMENT RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
More information is required as to where the nearest free parking is available, which will attract more visitors and families. For example at North Head its all metered parking at all the lookouts, so it took me a while to find the FREE National Park carpark down towards the sewerage works. There urgently needs to be a sign on the side road near the Parkhill archway, As buses from Manly Wharf are very few & far between.
Project Coordinator Comment 13
Project Team
8:35am, 17 September 2009
2
0
"RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
I am grateful for the existing plan that limits use that is keeping it in state as close to nature intended. I would not like to see more traffic being able to enter the area. I am also very familiar with die back issues from paths and would have to motion to limit the paths available for access for walking and other recreational vehicles such as Mountain bikes. I understand there is a fine line between appreciative use and loving it to death, but I feel the balance is right as is.
Tony Montana Comment 13.1
11:39pm, 11 November 2009
1
0
I love the policy @ Middle Head Mosman of pedestrians only. As soon as i enter the maingate i feel safe & so do my children. More of this & less of what the federation trust have created.
admin Comment 14
Administrator
1:03pm, 11 October 2009
2
0
COMMENT EMAILED TO ADMIN BY 'GRANNIE OF 5'
Regarding our National Parks., you seem to have forgotten that they were given to the people for their use and enjoyment. It is good to see facilities put in place but I believe that the average family on a basic wage cannot afford the entrance fees anymore. To have to pay these fees to have a free day out picnic is ridiculous.
Tom Comment 14.1
5:16pm, 24 November 2009
1
0
I remember the happy days when entry to North Head was free. When the road was full of cars on Boxing Day you could simply push down some more scrub and make your own car park.
Charging for cars is one way to reduce the demand and protect the bush. However the charge is too high when one can see that the North Head car parks are less than half full most of the time.
An improvement would be to have a dozen free 15 minute parking spaces at North Head to allow people to quickly show children and visitors to Sydney the magnificent view.
Alternatively, a free and frequent public shuttle bus would do the trick.
Other than North Head, most parts of the park are free, or become free if you park outside (or use public transport) and walk in.
Project Coordinator Comment 15
Project Team
8:18pm, 11 October 2009
2
0
"COMMENT RECEIVED FROM A REGISTERED SITE VISITOR"
Hi, I look forward to the Harbour in general being managed, provided the natural environment is not spoilt. Native birds and other animals should be encouraged to the areas. The builtiful islands are so remote for seniors. We cannot use our daily ticket to visit these islands as we have to pay through National Parks and Wildlife. I do not object to the cost of meals etc whilst on the island, or the cost of a tour, but the cost of getting there is prohibitive. I have been trying for 10 years to arrange a trip to Fort Denison for an historic association, but they are mostly seniors and cannot afford the cost of the ferry over to the island, which is a terrible shame as the history there is quite unique.
I am therefore hoping that better management will also include fares suitable for seniors - even if that fare was only available "not in school holiday period/weekends" or the like.
NickReese Comment 16
12:11pm, 10 December 2009
2
0
Could the potential Little Penguin Habitat zones be increased to include Fairy Bower (I have seen them in the surf area on the reef whilst surfing) and from Dobroyd Head around to Clontarf (I have seen Little Penguins feeding along the rocks of Middle Harbour between Clontarf and Grotto Point). This is a really important species for the park to protect.
RodHardingRobbins Comment 16.1
12:40pm, 23 December 2009
1
0
I too have seen Fairy Penguins whilst surfing at Fairy Bower. I don't know where they roost, as compared to feeding in that location, but if it is on the shore in that vicinity, then agree with NickReese that they need those sites protecting.
RodHardingRobbins Comment 17
12:53pm, 23 December 2009
1
0
>How do you feel about the way SHNP is currently managed?
I am encouraged that present management has shown the wisdom to include use of new technology such as this forum, for general public to be able to give constructive feedback on issues relating to SHNP.
I really hope that it is not a token thing allowing us to 'let off steam', and that issues raised will be seriously considered when Management Plans come up for review.
The 'consideration' process also needs to be open/transparent, as even if decisions are made that are not popular with general public, they are more likely to be tolerated if proper and reasonable justification is available to us.
Forgive me if I come across as slightly bitter about this, but I am still 'smarting' from the effects of the 1998 Management Plan banning rockclimbing in SHNP with the flimsy justification of it being 'incompatable with other park users' and 'never allowed there', when in fact the activity pre-dates the areas inclusion in SHNP and is certainly not incompatable with other park usage.
