WIRELESS?

It is becoming alarming just how our language is misrepresenting actual reality. The computer was promoted as the tool that would allow offices to be paperless. Now we have 'wireless technology.' Just as the amount of paper used has grown exponentially, so too has the increase in the number of cables needed to keep the wireless gadgets charged. There is some chat about trying to get some standardisation in this equipment, but like those dreams of compatibility across all platforms, this seems to be a hopeful dream that will never become fact. The real worry is that if we continue to allow our language to perpetuate such hoaxes as this, what future is there for anything sensible to occur? Even the old 'wireless' didn't have the complication of cables that we see today!

WEIGHTY MATTERS?

The following report in The Australian, July 13, 2012, by Aviation writer Steve Creedy, is interesting not only because of the subject of the piece, but also because of its language and logic. The implication is that the introduction of tablet technology into the cockpit will make an environmental difference to the operation. The new technology - cunningly promoted by brand of tablet twice in two sentences, complete with detailed specifications but no price - will apparently reduce the quantity of paper used and the weight carried on each flight. Wow!

Qantas pilots turn to iPads in a move designed to improve communication

QANTAS will deploy 2200 iPads to its pilots in a move designed to improve communication and data access while cutting down on cockpit paper.

The 64Gb iPads with 3G connectivity are also expected to provide about $1.5 million in annual savings through a combination of reduced printing and distribution costs as well as weight saving of about 20kg per aircraft.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/qantas-pilots-turn-to-ipads-in-a-move-designed-to-improve-communication/story-e6frg95x-1226424815246

The message seeks to give the classic ‘good news’ message of a ‘win-win’ situation: improved efficiency with money saved, with less paper used and less fuel wasted. It also clearly promotes one brand of tablet. It is the sort of language frequently used for positive ‘environmental’ promotional and sales messages.

The concern is that like most environmental and sales messages, this looks like a cynical public relations exercise in a ‘feel-good’ advertorial story rather than reporting on genuine concerns with real outcomes.

While the matter of latent tablet sales advertising is a concern, one has to ask: is weight on flights so critically managed that the effort to save 20kg on each flight is required – even considered? Forgetting about that person who always seems to be able to get the enormous bag on board as hand luggage that never fits, when you have struggled so hard to keep yours to size and weight, one only has to think about the other concern of personal size - that extra-large individual who nearly always has been given the seat next to you. Both these situations go unmanaged, randomly adding who knows how many ‘kg’s to the flight, all while we are asked to believe that Qantas is working so hard to be totally responsible in reducing its weight by 20kg. No, surely not. Is the main aim tablet sales? Has a deal been done here? Gosh, the decorative paint on an aeroplane weighs hundreds of kilograms.

Environmental matters are a weighty issue, but this media release seems to be a flippant game in manipulation of opinion on brands rather than a serious response to a real issue. Environmental matters only become degraded by such approaches. They become jokey when they are really much more serious, allowing others to treat these matters with a sceptical disdain - and why not?

 We need to manage these issues with much more rigour and responsibility if we expect others to respond accordingly, and act appropriately. Linking sales promotions to environmental concerns is a dangerous business that degrades both sides of the campaign. Has anyone asked about the embodied energy used in the manufacturing and distribution of the technology quoted? Has anyone asked about the batteries that these tablets use? What happens to the tonnes of batteries used every day? In Australia, with any luck, they find their way directly into landfill with other general waste. Who cares? The smart technology and stories like this only serve to distract us from such serious issues that need attention. The whiz and bang of wonder games and feel-good yarns keep us content with our entertainments, until a newer model arrives with better stories and faster outcomes. Who cares about anything else? We should.

STREET CHARACTER

 Further to the A ROAD IS NOT A ROAD article- see http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/road-is-not-road.html - the street images above and below are published here to illustrate the point made about roads and character. More simply: not all roads have the same character; nor should they be alike. Those that have a unique charm, scale and/or context need to be managed differently to other thoroughfares, in the same way as a private lane has no requirement to become a super highway.

The first image, (above), is also published here for the historical record. This quaint 'ROAD NARROWS - 25KPH - ROAD CLOSED TO THRU TRAFFIC' sign has now been removed. It is likely that it, and signs like it, will never be seen again. Did it go to the heritage section for future display? Is there a heritage section in the Council?

The images published here have been taken from Google Street View that still displays the sign in its' location. Even though the sign has gone, the road has not changed. It is still a narrow, twisting and steep track, open on one side to the bushland reserve. The sign was taken away after Council was asked to enforce its' messages. Instead of showing any sensitivity to place and purpose, Council appears to have opted to get rid of the controls that were thought necessary when the road was constructed. Council's only interest seems to be in avoiiding any effort that might be needed to keep the street safe and its' character in place. The simple proposition appears to be: Who cares? Certainly not the Gold Coast City Council or the local Councillor. The response is that this is a public road just like every other one the coast: if only!. Even the suggestion of some simple controls on traffic flows along this hill track have been rejected - mocked.

This is Wairoo Street in Division 12. Alas, one can only expect more of the same neglect and disregard for any road at Springbrook, Division 9 - World Heritage of not: road kill or not.

One must ponder the legal implications of Council's removal of this sign should there be any accident that might have been avoided if the information and controls had been left in place and enforced. Council's responsibility for native flora and fauna needs to be considered as well. While the images of quaint tracks, rainforest and bushland, and birds, koalas and lizards all appear in their beauty and colour on the promotional tourist brochures, they are not given much care or attention beyond this hype.

Going up. . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vista from hill over Burleigh Heads developments - typical of the Gold Coast character

Coming back down . . .

 

 

 

Springbrook can be seen in the distance through the wires.

This street offers one of the few vistas of the Hinterland regions from the coast but Council refused to listen to or act on the suggestion that available land here should become open parkland that could connect green areas in the district and offer this mountain prospect for visitors to enjoy. Such is life on the Gold Coast. One gets the feeling that there is some regret that the coast has any bushland reserves at all when the only driving force seems to be growth - growth in both population and numbers of tourists, never the trees.

The great worry for Springbrook is that it will be consiered only as a location that has to have its' roads 'improved' rather than as a UNESCO World Heritage location, and all that this means fof the management of this region.

For more on tourism and the environment see KILLING FOR LOVE OF PROFIT and WHO OR WHAT IS A TOURIST?:
http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/killing-for-love-of-profit.html 
http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/who-or-what-is-tourist.html

KILLING FOR LOVE OF PROFIT

There are four articles in Google News today, Thursday, 12^th July 2012, that spell out very clearly the terrible present state of things environmental. These reports have come together only because of the daily news cycle. They highlight the raw and careless cynicism in our world that seeks only profit, and is prepared to ignore all necessary responsibility for outcomes, while seeking to gain from the promotion of the ideals of sustainability, and the care and concern for our world’s future.

One has to do with the false advertising of a duck producer:

CONSUMER authorities are suing Australia's largest duck producer after activists filmed its ''open range'' ducks crowded into dirty pens, some of them covered in faeces with their wing-stubs caught in metal grates.

One has to do with the fate of a baby panda in Tokyo:zoo:

The death of a baby panda in Japan stopped regular television programming and brought a Tokyo zoo director to tears yesterday, a week after its birth sent ripples of excitement across the nation.

Newscasts had dedicated a nightly segment to the male cub's daily activities since his birth on July 5, with retailers unveiling a host of panda-themed products in celebration.

 The next has to do with the super trawler seeking registration in Australia to allow it to fish in our territory:

It will be flagged to Australia to be eligible to fish for a quota of about 18,000 tonnes of mackerel and redbait, to be block frozen whole on board and exported, Parlevliet's joint venture partner Seafish Tasmania said.

The 142-metre trawling giant has a 200-metre long net with an opening measuring 75 by 35 metres. It has a freezing capacity of 200 tonnes a day.

Australian fishers have long sought to exploit the country's so-called "small pelagics", which are prey for bigger fish such as tuna and marlin.

 The last article seems to sum it up. It has to do with the bulldozing of thousands of rare turtle eggs:

KINGSTON: Thousands of leatherback turtle eggs and hatchlings have been crushed by heavy machinery on a beach in Trinidad.

Conservationists said the beach was widely regarded as the world's most dense nesting area for the biggest species of living sea turtles, which is endangered.

Government work crews with bulldozers were redirecting the Grand Riviere, a shifting river that was threatening a hotel.

The hotel was full of tourists who had come to Trinidad to see the tiny leatherback hatchlings head for the surf. Instead, they saw injured hatchlings dying.

The duck producer seemed happy to promote his barn-raised ducks as:

duck meat as ''Grown Nature's Way'' and indicating that their ducks ''were allowed to spend at least a substantial amount of their time with access to an outdoor body of water … foraging for food outdoors'', and were of better quality than barn-raised ducks when ''that was not the case''.

While talking about the excitement and news interest in the first baby panda to be conceived naturally, the text continues on breathlessly to report on the ‘panda-themed products’ that were on sale as part of the celebration. The panda had immediately become a marketable item. The text suggests that there is some sadness at the loss of this market opportunity, leaving one with mixed messages on the meaning of the birth for the world.

The super trawler leaves one gob smacked at the statistics. Why would anyone believe that the extraction of such quantities of fish could ever be sustainable? Why would a country allow such a devastation of its fisheries? Our prime minister has already leapt into the fray:

The venture has been backed by the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, who said the Australian Fisheries Management Authority would decide on a permit based on the sustainability of the catch.

The real worry is that lists and boxes are just too easily crossed off and ticked when words can be used as shields to justify anything. One should recall that this is the same prime minister, a trained lawyer, who declared Julian Assange guilty even though he had broken no Australian law.

The fate of the turtles seems to say it all. The bulldozers were redirecting a river that was threatening the hotel that was erected for the tourists to come to see this rare and endangered species hatch. The most important matter was the hotel and the tourists, not the turtles, endangered and rare or not. As Oscar Wilde pointed out: ‘all men kill the thing they love.’ But does this have to be done so blatantly by blind greed and rapacious thoughtlessness?

The message is clear: we will end up with nothing but the ruins of hotels and bands of tourists wandering around looking for the next ‘fix’ if we do not act now to ensure a coherence and integrity in our attitude to this world and the other lives that share it with us.

Responding thoughtlessly to the declarations of sergeant-major-like screams, and the pomp of the little man, does not give good outcomes, no matter how the actor might pretend to believe in the gravity of the pronouncements. Queensland needs to be vigilant. Springbrook is too special to be allowed to be managed carelessly, just as the sergeant-majors are:

Sergeant-major

The articles can be read in full at:

http://m.theage.com.au/national/duck-producer-in-trouble-over-false-claim-ads-20120711-21we6.html

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/animals/baby-giant-pandas-death-in-tokyo-sparks-grief-20120711-21w37.html

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/supertrawler-wants-to-call-australia-home-20120711-21vai.html

http://m.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/thousands-of-rare-turtle-eggs-bulldozed-20120710-21ty4.html

see also WHO OR WHAT IS A TOURIST? - http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/who-or-what-is-tourist.html

WHO OR WHAT IS A TOURIST?

The e-mail started with this sentence:

The workshop . . . .  attended was "Using Wildlife for Tourism: Opportunities, Threats, Responsibilities." (run by Wildlife Tourism Australian Inc.)

It raised the questions: What matters would have been discussed at this workshop? How can wildlife be ‘used’ for tourism? Should it be? Indeed - what is a tourist? Who is a tourist? What has to be done to create ‘opportunities’ for these creatures that would normally not be considered sensible or relevant, as folk say, in ordinary ‘everyday living’? What is unique about tourism and its’ demands?

The first thought is that zoos cater for tourists with their ‘wild’ animals. Is this what wildlife tourism means? Somehow there is a different sense here involving something more wild; more ‘free’ - more challenging. What does a tourist expect? What does a tourist do that requires such special attention? It seems that ‘attractions’ are required; something that stands out from the usual. So a tourist seeks the unusual; things that are different? Maybe.

The dictionary (dictionary.com) says that a tourist is:

tour·ist

   [toor-ist]

noun

1.

a person who is traveling, especially for pleasure.

2.

tourist class.

adverb

3.

in tourist-class accommodations, or by tourist-class conveyance: to travel tourist.

Origin:
1770–80; tour  + -ist

Related forms

non·tour·ist, noun

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2012.
 

Link To tourist

Example Sentences

• During that month the city, except for its main tourist arteries, is a radically different place from its usual self.

• Hotels, restaurants, shops and tourist guides are complaining of a huge drop in income.

• It was an old tourist attraction, with steps and handrails and electric lights.

Related Words for : tourist

holidaymaker, tourer

World English Dictionary

tourist  (ˈtʊərɪst)
— n
1.	a. a person who travels for pleasure, usually sightseeing and staying in hotels
	b. ( as modifier ): tourist attractions
2.	a person on an excursion or sightseeing tour
3.	a person travelling abroad as a member of a sports team that is playing a series of usually international matches
4.	Also called: tourist class  the lowest class of accommodation on a passenger ship
— adj
5.	of or relating to tourist accommodation
tour'istic
— adj

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

Etymonline

Word Origin & History

tourist

first attested 1780, from tour (n.); tourist trap attested from 1939, in Graham Greene.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

 As the word was only first attested in 1789, Captain Cook could not have been ‘a tourist,’ but maybe his reports about Australia initiated the desire for tourism?

The one characteristic identified in the definitions as relating specifically to tourists is ‘pleasure.’ To summarize, the definition simply says that a tourist is one travelling for pleasure, maybe abroad, sightseeing or on an excursion, and usually staying in hotels. So one can identify the important differences with a tourist as being the seeking of pleasure by looking at or participating in something during specially organised trips away from home, while staying in hotels. In the context of the first sentence of the e-mail that spoke of the workshop ‘Using Wildlife for Tourism: Opportunities,’ one has to interpret the possibilities for this ‘use’ as being the organisation of special trips so that travellers can enjoy the spectacle of things wild when moving from their hotel accommodation on excursions. It could even be that the hotel is close to the wildlife, so that there may be no need for any excursion - that the hotel stay is the excursion. Yet this organisational aspect is the ‘structural’ aspect of the definition. The core is pleasure.

For a tourist to want to go and see, there has to be an attraction that intrigues and cajoles, draws a tourist in with the promise of a special pleasure that distracts from things ‘everyday.’ This seems to be the primary matter, as excursions and hotels are mere supporting issues that allow for - facilitate - the ‘sightseeing’ that gives the pleasure being sought. Unless a tourist has some unique masochistic interest, one could classify a tourist more simply and directly - perhaps more honestly - as ‘a pleasure seeker.’ So it is that tourists travel to bungie jump, climb mountains or laze on a beach - to each his/her own delight.

So what about these wild animals? The proposition seems to be: how can wild animals be presented to / made accessible to groups of tourists on excursions to maximise the tourists’ pleasure? It was Barry Lopez, (Arctic Dreams, Of Wolves and Men, Crossing Open Ground), in one of his wonderful essays on nature, who spoke of how, when, after diving in the Caribbean, he returned to his hotel to be asked excitedly by other drivers on the excursion: “Wow! Did you see the octopus?” Lopez, far more sensitive to his natural surroundings than any ordinary tourist, noted that it would have been much better to ask: “Where had this octopus come from? Where was it going? What was it doing there?” What he was emphasizing was that nature is not merely something to gawk at for our selfish pleasure. It is not there just for our entertainment. It is there along with us, in this world, sharing it. We have no better rights to claim any more than this, no matter what is said in Genesis about domination.

Our response as pleasure seekers ignores the very heart of the situation by placing all of the importance and significance on and in the observer - the self-important tourist seeking a pleasurable indulgence, whatever the outcome or implications of this activity might be, because it has been paid for. For Lopez the pleasure came from sharing the same space and place as this other creature, with each respecting the other with a reciprocal understanding, care and reverence - a position that can be summed up as responsibility: a word that touches on the ability to respond and the level of accountability that this reaction holds - indeed, demands.

The worry with the tourist is that there is no necessary responsibility in any sense other than in self-interest. Look how the crowds push and pull to see, to insist on their 'rights' that have been purchased. The singular aim is indulgent pleasure seeking. Tourists will do anything to get their pleasures. The great problem with tourism lies in this irresponsibility - the lack of care for the observed thing in their sights when ‘sightseeing.’ The aim is to maximise the pleasure achieved; to heighten the ‘fix’ of the pleasurable outcome, the more unique the better: and once this has been done, the excursion moves on to the next object of pleasure, because pleasure, like most ‘highs,’ has its limits and must become a ‘low’ again. It can sustain itself only for short periods before other matters intrude - time, weather, crowds, money, family, bodily functions and feelings: those droll necessities of life and being.

So, as for “Using Wildlife for Tourism: Opportunities,” and, one could add “Using World Heritage for Tourism Opportunities,” the important word is ‘using’ - using something for irresponsible pleasure: ‘ab-using’ it. Tourists ‘use’ things - they consume, and spend money for the privilege of being remote from ordinary things. The echo of the prefix ‘eco’ makes no difference to outcomes. The ‘sight’ is still being used for a tourist’s pleasure seeking, with no other aim than this, echo or eco. Soon other matters creep in to further complicate issues: comfort needs to be attended to, and convenience catered for. So the ‘attraction’ attracts facilities - food outlets, hotels, motels, cafes, grand roads, transport, parking lots - all for the comfort and convenience of the tourist, to add to the pleasure: to enhance it; at the very least, not to allow any interference with the delight being singled out. And the grander these facilities can be, the better is the ‘attraction’ - ‘world class’! - whatever that means. So we see astonishing hotels in astonishing places that treat amazing landscape as less than a painting, to be gawked at as the backdrop for immoderation; and wild animals too, become merely as actors - extras - in the pleasure game. The real worry is that they might not appear on cue, so tricks are used to ensure the ‘value’ of the experience. Things just get messy, and more messy.

What does become clear is that tourism needs to be very carefully managed. Often, in all of this hoohaa, the fake can be just as attractive as the real. Indeed, sometimes it is more convenient and comfortable, and hence more pleasurable. So why ‘bugger up’ the real? Why not make more and more fake - snowfields in Dubai; underwater hotels in the desert; rain forests in the heart of cities; surf in a ‘safe’ pool in a park? Keep the real and look after it responsibly. Tourists will do nothing for it but damage and interfere unless carefully managed. Simply put, tourism and World Heritage do not mix freely and should not. In the same way, wildlife needs to be protected, respected. Careful controls, management and supervision are needed, with the aim being to sustain the essence of the place and the animal, not the delight and comfort of the tourist, no matter how demanding this might become.

Unless we are prepared to ask the Lopez question and understand what its’ significance is, and to act on this basis, then we have a real problem. The Lopez proposition is that things need to be left alone - to be respected, not treated as dramatic spectacles. Reverence is involved - it touches on a spiritual matter, not merely the intrigue and delight of the extraordinary, for our world is extraordinary.

And Springbrook? Springbrook National Park is part of the World Heritage area that has been nominated because of its biodiversity. This is the core thing to remember. Springbrook National Park is also a very small National Park that is surrounded by development. It needs great care if its’ special World Heritage properties are not going to be erased by pleasure seekers, because extreme care and concern is required for the maintenance of the diversity that knows nothing of tourism, and owes it nothing. Governments need to understand this because fragile ecosystems are so easily disturbed and disrupted, but are so difficult to regain, to re-establish. The wonder of Springbrook is that, even in this tiny area, new species are still being discovered to this very day. To march in and trample this place for singular, selfish delight and others’ profits is an arrogance that cannot be allowed to continue willy-nilly. There are responsibilities that come with World Heritage listings, even if we remain blind to our responsibilities for our natural world and its meaning.

Tourism may bring in the dollars, but if the ambition is only pleasure, then we need to construct marvellous attractions well away from the real and fragile parts of our world and the world’s heritage. Play the game of fantasizing to maximise the pleasure in difference elsewhere. Don’t introduce comforts to add to the attraction in these sensitive places, in the belief that these facilities will have no impact. Such a strategy will kill the very thing that is most loved - by others. Rarely is love something that a tourist brings, other than the great desire for and love of pleasure. Pleasure is gained and the move is then on for more, and more. This is the threat. We have a responsibility to ensure it does no damage by saying no, go away - play the fake games of delight elsewhere. World Heritage means limits and controls, not the ‘come and see the extraordinary’ hype, even though it is. It should be: come and respect the special - for these reasons. It is your responsibility - and ours too. Feel welcome, but come as a thinking, feeling , caring, responsible person, not as a tourist.

For details of Springbrook see: www.springbrookrescue.org.au

P.S.
The Sydney Morning Herald of 25th May 2013 reported on ex-Prime Minister Paul Keating's concern with the commercialisaiton of the botanic gardens. Paul Keating sees the gardens as a place for quiet enjoyment and contemplation - see:

http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/gardens-not-for-raising-cash-keating-20130525-2n3r1.html

''The botanical gardens should be our proud front garden, instead of that, it is moving inexorably to being simply another arena,'' Mr Keating said. ''The trust would be better leaving municipal park benches strewn through the gardens and Domain, to allow people's quiet enjoyment and contemplation, rather than this grotesque alienation to the private events and party hire industry.''

The Trust and the Government apparently have other ambitions:

Last week, Environment Minister Robyn Parker said there was a need for a permanent music bowl in the gardens, and more revenue opportunities. Cox Architecture is drawing up a plan to create an ''unrivalled experience'' for tourists.

It seems that not even the Environment Minister is interested in 'quiet enjoyment and contemplation,' just in creating 'an unrivalled experience for tourists.' After all, tourists do not want simple solitude or any time for reflection, just more and better distractions. The world is only too happy to provide as many of these as it can. Giving thought to ordinary, everyday life that needs quiet and restful times and places is seen simply as a waste of time and a loss of money - tourist dollars. Designing the world for tourism is changing lives by ignoring the simple necessities in favour of exhibitionism.


23rd April 2014

Jan Morris  Contact! Brief encounters in a lifetime of travel  Faber and Faber, London, 2009, p.126:

 Arrival of the tourists

Down in the harbour of Capri I can see the morning vaporetto from the mainland, still hazy about the funnel, and here flooding into the piazza, pouring out of taxis, out of buses, out of horse carriages, out of the steep funicular that runs up from the waterfront - wearing floppy straw hats and rope-soled shoes and pink jeans and multifarious bangles - festooned with cameras, inquiring the price of swimsuits, unfolding maps, touching up their lipsticks beneath the campanile – talking German, English, French and every variety of Italian – young and old, blatant and demure, strait laced and outrageous, earnest and frivolous and thrilled and sick-to-death-of-it-all – here past my café table streams the first quota of the morning’s tourists.

31 May 2014
The face of tourism

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-27624575

The subject of interest is always secondary to ME and MY experience. Wonder is belittled, turned into a background for MY performance.

13 JULY 2015

It was a sentence in an E-mail received today, totally unsolicited:

He told them they want the walk as Springbrook needs something else to bring even more tourists up.

Tourists always want more and more. Even ‘World Heritage’ is never enough; such is the desire for ever-new, quirky and different distractions. Would we really do this to World Heritage Uluru? Would the French have this approach to Chartres cathedral? The Indians to the Taj Mahal? – see: 

http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/cableway-farce-uluru.html

http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/cableway-farce-chartres.html

and

http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/taj-mahal-for-lease-pure-farce.html

The problem is that bush walkers are a little like things ‘eco’: they have the appearance of being sensitive to place when the real ambition seems to be similar to that of mountain climbers – to make the journey and tick the box.

We need to understand the unique importance of having one of the few regions in the world that has been listed as having ‘World Heritage’ values.

BUNGLE BUNGLE

The Bungle Bungle Range, Purnululu National Park was promoted in The Weekend Australian June 23-24, 2012 with a full-page advertisement: WORLD HERITAGE!

The listing is used merely for the smart play on words - make it part of your list too: TOURISM.

 The hype is emphasised - EXPERIENCE EXTRAORDINARY!

It's just what every tourist is looking for.

There is no World Heritage logo to emphasise the message of the listing and its significance, nor is there any explanation of why the place is so important.

The buzz is created to attract and intrigue tourists - like flies.

It is a shame that World Heritage listings in Australia only seem to have a meaning for promotion.

Let's hope we don't continue to bungle things in this way.

Countries have obligations and repsonsibilities to properly manage their Wolrd Heritage regions, not for tourism, but for the preservation of the values which stimulated the listing.

It is extraordinary how this is forgotten and neglected in favour of making money from the meaning. 

The irony is that Australians have always struggled to be 'World Class.' 

Yet when we have it, we are not interested in caring for it.

see also: http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/who-or-what-is-tourist.html

SKYRAIL PUSH AGAIN

The push continues:

We'll just have to keep pushing too, until the meaning and importance of the World Heritage listing is recognised, and our responsibility for it is accepted.

see also:
http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/bungle-bungle.html
http://springbrooklocale.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/who-or-what-is-tourist.html