Author Topic: Craigbourne dam help needed. (Read 590 times)

Dan · « **on:** December 04, 2018, 10:28:26 am »

Hi guys and girls, I've copied and pasted this from facebook (sports fish tasmania to be exact) I personally fish this area though not as often as I would like. Another fishing access possibly about to be lost.

Please help out by sending an email to the council to voice your objection to this proposal. Your help would be greatly appreciated. I feel they tried to sneak this one under the radar in the hope of no one seeing it in the paper.

CRAIGBOURNE DAM ACCESS …...... Going …....... Going ….....................

Above is a copy of an advertisement that the Southern Midlands Council placed in the Hobart Mercury last Saturday.

The only guarantee I can give you in this situation is that if you do nothing; if you don't register your objection to the closure of Craigbourne road, then your access to that public road and to the publicly accessible areas at the Eastern end of Craigbourne Dam will be taken from you forever.

I doubt that this has been advertised anywhere else and you probably didn't know this appeared in the paper (The Council knows this). PLEASE, if you enjoy fishing at Craigbourne Dam or if you enjoy nature photography or just appreciate having somewhere safe to take your kids fishing in a beautiful environment, then PLEASE register your objection with the Council.

Even if you don't visit Craigbourne Dam personally, the issue is much wider than public access to this one spot. The issue is simple ….. one new landowner's desire to shut the world out, versus the long-established right of all citizens to use a public road to access an area that they have enjoyed since the dam was constructed in the late eighties. Craigbourne Road has been a public road since long before Craigboune Dam was even thought of. The fact that this 'proposal' is being considered at all is an absolute disgrace.

If you know anybody else who you think would be willing to get behind us on this, then please send them a link to this post.

I know that many people aren't comfortable with writing official submissions (the Council knows that too). I will write a pro-forma objection to this proposal and I'll post it on here. If you agree with what it says, then you can print it, sign it and mail it to the Council or you can just add your name and address to it and email it to the council.

We only have a couple of weeks, so please don't think you'll get to it later.

If you'd like to discuss any aspect of this, I would welcome a call …. 6254 7194.

Thank you,

Andrew Caddle

Knicks · « **Reply #1 on:** December 04, 2018, 11:44:59 am »

I agree that the public should have access to the Dam as I also fish it BUT the council should be changing the access to it to give the people residing on that road some privacy.

I only started fishing it 2 years ago when I moved here from QLD and was really surprised that money has not been spent there to make it more accesable for fishing and Kayaking.
I understand people may be of the opinion that the residents should have not purchased there if they want privacy but surely it would not cost much to put in another dirt road just a bit further down and some BBQ's and play areas, it would 100% bring more money to the local businesses through the summer months.

reddory · « **Reply #2 on:** December 04, 2018, 01:19:28 pm »

Mmm: trouble is, although the road itself is public, I have always understood that all the land it gives access to is private - and that includes the lake shore. While there are users who simply come to the lake, fish quietly and go away again, there are also a fair few less considerate buggers who leave the gate open; take their 4wd's off up the various farm tracks that lead off the road, churning them up; leave rubbish behind; damage the fences that are there; etc.

If the proposal involves closing the road at the point where the gate currently is, and (I hope) the council will put a decent turning and parking area there instead, so people who genuinely do just want to fish can leave their vehicle and walk down to the lake shore, then I think that would probably be OK. Especially if it's combined with a decent upgrade of the boat ramp at the dam end to include a double rampway and a good-sized pontoon, and better parking area so a bigger range of boats could access the lake.

rogun · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2018, 04:18:36 pm »

I have quite often fished the eastern end, there was a short period of time that the gate was locked due to the d..k heads that destroyed the land owners bulldozer and another machine, I saw the results from the senseless vandalism and I saw the results from the fire that was also set

. I knew of the land owner at that time and had several decent conversations with him. He sold his land to a new owner.
I did park back up at the gate when it was locked, I parked approximately 50 meters back from the gate so as not to block any other vehicles and then I walked in to fish. I walked back out on dusk, then faced a long walk back out until I was able to flag a car down for assistance. NO Mobile reception out there!, My car had been vandalized, scratched with all tyres slashed. When I returned with a mate and a car trailer the next morning to pick up my car, they had returned and smashed all of the windows.
Why an agreement can not be reached to erect a simple stock fence alongside the road and a small area for people to park and then be able to keep an eye on things is beyond me. I will be willing to help put a fence up in the interest of maintaining public access.
Why is it that decent hard working people have to suffer at the hand and malice of twits.

Rohan · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2018, 08:39:43 pm »

Are there brown trout in there

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rogun · « **Reply #5 on:** December 05, 2018, 01:05:34 pm »

browns, some rainbow and the odd brook trout, plenty of red fin perch

Rohan · « **Reply #6 on:** December 05, 2018, 09:11:47 pm »

Quote from: rogun on December 05, 2018, 01:05:34 pm

browns, some rainbow and the odd brook trout, plenty of red fin perch

I don't think they can deny access to a dam that contains brown trout

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

rogun · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2018, 09:36:31 pm »

Hi Rohan,
Without getting too technical, we all have access to the dam via the western end.
Therefore we are not shut out altogether.
I am fairly familiar with the situation in that due to unruly behaviour of certain individuals over time, (not fishers)
the new land owner has before, and is likely to be trying to keep those people out. In doing so we all suffer with difficulty of access.
The owner was very annoyed about his paddocks being used as skid pans, equipment vandalised, fences ruined and so on.
Its a difficult situation all round.

cheers.

Rohan · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2018, 05:14:32 am »

Quote from: rogun on December 05, 2018, 09:36:31 pm

Hi Rohan,
Without getting too technical, we all have access to the dam via the western end.
Therefore we are not shut out altogether.
I am fairly familiar with the situation in that due to unruly behaviour of certain individuals over time, (not fishers)
the new land owner has before, and is likely to be trying to keep those people out. In doing so we all suffer with difficulty of access.
The owner was very annoyed about his paddocks being used as skid pans, equipment vandalised, fences ruined and so on.
Its a difficult situation all round.
cheers.

Quite understandable, like everywhere else the damage isn't done by people who are there to fish

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

reddory · « **Reply #9 on:** December 13, 2018, 08:53:16 am »

I noticed the issue made a news item on the ABC News website yesterday.

I sent off a submission this morning. I'm putting it up here in full (as follows). If anyone wants to borrow any part of it for their submission, feel free!

Submission regarding the proposed closure of public access road
to the north-eastern area of Craigbourne dam

The road in question is a public road.

The landowner with property adjoining the road has every right to keep uninvited people off his property.

The road itself is not his property – it merely abuts it.

The road is used (and has been used, since the creation of the lake in the early 1980s) by a significant number of anglers seeking peaceful recreation. They respect the private property by restricting their movements to the immediate lake shore, and do not by and large wander willy-nilly about it.

This lake provides an opportunity for anglers from greater Hobart to access a lake-fishing experience relatively close to home. It is the only lake that does so. The location at the dam end of the lake has some facilities for parking, and for both launching small boats and shore fishing. However, pedestrian access to much of the lake from that end is limited, due to the closure of access across the dam by Tas Water. The north-eastern end (the location in question here) is the only other point of public access.

I concede that there are undesirable elements in the community who do not respect the landowner’s privacy, and who trespass and cause damage to his property. However, these are not the genuine anglers, of whom there are many: they are the local “bogans”, of whom there are in fact few. In fact, there have been attacks made on the vehicles and property of visiting anglers, probably by the same undesirables, on occasions when the road has been closed at the existing gate and anglers have had to park there and walk to the lake.

I submit that, rather than punishing a large number of law-abiding citizens by closing off the public access road to their recreation area, the council should suggest to the landowner that he fence his property on both sides of that road – just as any other property owner does. Then if unwanted incursions continue, he would have recourse to calling police to enforce the laws of trespass and damage to property – just as other landowners do.

The council, in order to facilitate this solution, might even consider helping the landowner to also set aside and fence off a suitable section near the lake where anglers can park safely and walk the shore: perhaps also Inland Fisheries (Angler Access program), MAST, Tas Water and/or other relevant bodies might assist with this.

Paul Abbott

Concerned occasional visiting angler.

Paddlefish Tasmania · « **Reply #10 on:** December 13, 2018, 09:46:03 am »

and that my friends, is how you write a submission. Succinct and to the point.

I hadn't even considered the fencing issue and is a perfect resolution.

I somehow managed to get myself dragged into that rubbish ABC article. I thoroughly despise supposed journalists using "quotes" off social media.

rogun · « **Reply #11 on:** December 13, 2018, 02:57:11 pm »

Well put Paul,
As I had pointed out in an earlier comment, A fence would be a solution.
Only one side of the road requires fencing as there is already a fence in place on the other side. There is another solid boom gate constructed prior to the sheering sheds on the left side of access. The new section or (run) of fence could continue to form a parking area immediately at the end of the public road and extend to the right.
Lets hope common sense prevails and everyone wins. Cheers

reddory · « **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2019, 01:44:23 pm »

Hooray!

Just got a communication from Southern Midlands Council regarding their decision re the road at a meeting last week.

In short, it says:
At this meeting Council formed the opinion that there are insufficient grounds to satisfy closure of the road and that unrestricted access be maintained to the Craigbourne Dam via the NE section accessed via Link Road

Seems now the landowner cannot restrict access to the road; it will remain open for public use, and the Council will talk to the landowner about fencing or whatever suitable means of securing their property.

A win!

Dan · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2019, 08:15:59 am »

Yep, same here. Good to see common sense prevail.
They had a very large number of submissions apparently. With the overwhelming majority in support of keeping the road open.