A concern has been raised about a canyon guide published in TDMSKP that had not been previously published. Very clearly the NPWS code of ethics states "Don't publicise 'new' canyons or those in wilderness areas, to preserve opportunities for discovery and to minimise impacts."
I am happy to moderate entries made into TDMSKP in accordance with this guideline, but I think we need a more thorough ruling than this vague statement. The internet changes everything when it comes to vague statements about what has been and what has not been previously publicised, and so we need to figure out what exactly it is that we will allow to be published, and what we will not.
Why?
- It is easy for someone here to get directions to an unpublished canyon, and then maybe post a description of their trip through that canyon in their bushwalking club newsletter, which then gets published online. This may happen two or three times with different people, different clubs, different websites etc, and it is suddenly easy for anyone to find enough information about the canyon via Google to get there without any directions from real people. Is this canyon now publicised? Is it free to be published in the next Canyon Guidebook, or on TDMSKP?
That seems like an unintended loophole to me, which could be easily abused if someone really wanted to publish a guide to their favourite new canyon.
<<
I think that reforming this vague guideline handed down by the NPWS is the bare minimum step we need to take. I would like to see some discussion on this topic, and ideas about how this can be achieved, and whether it is worth keeping this guideline at all. I personally think it is unnecessary and should be removed entirely. I will argue that point of view in my next post.
