Submission respondents mage: postcode data from surveys Submissions A total of 97 submissions were received during the engagement period, including 45 (46 per cent) from individuals and 52 (54%) made on behalf of organisations. A diverse range of organisations provided submissions, including management authorities, government bodies and departments, recreation and interest groups, business and traditional owner groups. The names of individuals and organisations who provided submissions, and who did not elect to make these ‘confidential’, will be published in the final plan. Of the 97 submissions, 20 per cent utilised the submission guide template, and the rest comprised (41 per cent) and (39 per cent). 41% 39% 20%
What we heard Key messages to Parks Victoria The following outlines the key issues and opportunities we heard from engagement in this phase. We support the visions associated with each chapter Ensure that you acknowledge all histories and cultures related to the land We encourage you to strengthen partnerships, collaboration, community involvement and awareness Improve visitor awareness of parks and acceptable behaviours to make recreation and use more sustainable for future generations camping Carefully manage camping, fires, dogs and litter More science and research remain to management Pests and weeds are the #1 threat that we must get on top of Traditional Owner knowledge a valuable addition to interpretation and management 
‘Caring for Culture’ In ‘Caring for Culture’, Parks Victoria acknowledges the importance of protecting Aboriginal heritage. This involves, in part, further work to monitor and interpret cultural site, directing visitors away from sensitive places, changing some SUPPORT FOR THE VISION More than half (56 per cent) of survey participants supported the proposed vision for ‘Caring for Culture’. heritage, and restrictions placed on access and use in the parks. ‘What about my cultural connection to this land?’ ‘Parks need to keep out of all Australian Bush and native systems. Constantly putting restrictions on visitor practices, improving visitor information and investigating the formal use of appropriate Aboriginal or local names for features, places, roads and tracks, or parks. The post-colonial settlement heritage will continue to be recognised and respected through further information and interpretation, and identification and protection of priority heritage places and A of 25 survey participants and 5 submissions provided feedback on ‘Caring for Culture’. KEY MESSAGES Do not support at all 20% Slightly 8% Neither support nor oppose 16% PARKS KEY TO CULTURAL SURVIVAL support 24% Support 32% what can and can’t be done in public land is unacceptable’ MANAGING THREATS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE Participants told us that vandalism is the biggest perceived threat to cultural heritage sites, with 32 per cent of responses. This was followed closely by off-road 4WD and trail biking (25 per cent). Increasing visitor awareness was the most commonly perceived way to minimise impacts, with 40 per cent of responses. This was followed by increased penalties Support for the vision key to cultural survival Acknowledge all histories Vandalism is the #1 threat Visitor awareness is vital Participants supportive of the vision talked about the importance of parks for both the significant ancient and contemporary sites they contain. ‘[National Parks] hold the key to cultural survival’ Protection of these was an important theme in the supportive responses – through changing patterns of behaviour and use, or education rather than restrictions. ‘People should be educated on how to use areas respectfully… restrictions only make small rural towns suffer more than they do now’ ACKNOWLEDGING ALL HISTORIES AND ACCESS There was support for the separate strategies in the draft plan to acknowledge both pre- and post-colonial timelines. However, a common across some responses was concern about the loss of colonial (26 per cent).
camping licence that works in a similar way to the recreational fishing licence.’ The poor behaviour of inexperienced or ill-informed campers was also a common theme – particularly around fire and safety, and litter. ‘I am finding campers are lighting fires when it is an inappropriate time, with a higher risk fire day or on a day of fire ban is. As much as I would not like to see this happen, I feel there should be a blanket ban on campfires from 1st December until 28 February, this way there would be no confusion about when a campfire could be lit.’ ’There is also a large contingent of people coming from metropolitan areas who don’t understand the impacts of their visitation, at least making them visit an online site to obtain a licence may mean that they read the guide and understand their responsibilities.’ Proposed restrictions on camping with dogs received some comments from concerned park – contrasted with other comments on the bad behaviour of uncontrolled dogs. ‘Dogs, some vicious, some just annoying have been reported. Lots of complaints of dogs allowed to roam free through various camp sites.’ ‘I find it really sad that slowly bit by bit the to free camp with our dogs is being outlawed. There are so many people whose dog is a member of their family and pose no threat to wildlife. The people I have seen are usually responsible dog owners who keep their dogs tethered or at the very least have voice control over their pets. I have camped with my dog for many years… surely we should be allocated somewhere along the proposed area to take our dogs.’