Environmental inconsistencies??

[unitec]

Recently returned from a trip to Mt bulla where I had an absolute ball.
During one of the many trips back up the mountain on the chair lift (licking my wounds) I was trying to imagine what the place looked like covered in snow (I’m not a skier) and suddenly realized that for a far as the eye could see huge sections of forest had been clear felled to create the ski slopes.
I then looked back at the MTB trail that was practically invisible except where it crossed the cleared ski field and wondered “where are all the people protesting about skiers damage to the environment”? They seem to be immune to the same level of scrutiny that the MTB community is subject to.
I then started to think about other sports such as foot ball, golf, all forms of motor racing, horse riding etc. that start with a clean slate of land to build their required facilities. Although these facilities require environmental approval before hand they do not suffer the same on going environmental scrutiny that an MTB track built in a state forest or crown land does.
There are a number of questions that this raises:-

“Is our desire to create more MTB tracks being hampered by our own environmental over sensitivity“
And
“by constructing our tracks in state forests are we are we locking future generations into a sport that cannot develop due to environmental limitations on the construction of proper facilities?”
And
“ if we were able to construct the ideal purpose built MTB park what facilities would it include”?

 

[Trizender]

I feel the same way whenever I see a sports field or stadium. Every tree in site bulldozed so the fat masses can watch a game but put a narrow winding path amongst the trees and suddenly you are an environmental vandal.

 

[dain2772]

I think the problem with the comparison is that most of these other sports facilities were in place before the enviroment was a concern - ie most sports fields, racetracks etc. I am sure if someone wanted to clear some land for a football field there would be some people against it.

Also, the areas where we like to ride (ie the mountains in Mountain Biking) generally tend to be less developed as they are harder to build on, and quite often are remnant areas of bushland, which people like to keep pristine.

But it is very true that 95% of the bush remains untouched while our trails run between and under trees.

The other issue is that when land is cleared, there is no ongoing impact. It is stuffed (from an environmental perspective) and that doesn't change. On a trail, someone walks along one day and sees that there are bike tracks, and that the track has changed since last time they were there - ie that bikes are having an ongoing impact on the location (although still minimal in the grand scheme of things.

State forests are great places for trails, because they have plenty of firetrails through, and as long as trees are destroyed, we can do our stuff and they theirs. National parks just don't generally (note I said generally) like bikers (and 4WD and trail bikes) because there is more of an impact on the environment. Cars are often accepted because they usually keep to the main trails, whereas bikes (and trail bikes) can and will make their own.

We also don't generally have the ability to understand when our riding and our trails impact upon endangered species etc (unless you ride with ecologists who can name most if not all of the plant and animal species like I do).


I think that mountain biking is an awesome way to enjoy these nice areas, and that we should be able to come to a good compromise with the land owners, but unfortunately, until some cashed up mountain biker buys a big forest, we will always be asking permission to use land - and ownership is 9/10s of the law (more in some places).

I think that going forward the advocacy groups that have done so much for us, will continue to gain momentum and we will have ever more places to ride, which means more riders and more power behind advocacy.

GO MTB!!!

 

[Hoppalong]

“Is our desire to create more MTB tracks being hampered by our own environmental over sensitivity“
And
“by constructing our tracks in state forests are we are we locking future generations into a sport that cannot develop due to environmental limitations on the construction of proper facilities?”
And
“ if we were able to construct the ideal purpose built MTB park what facilities would it include”?

First Question: I don't think that it's OUR enviromental oversensitivity that's the problem. I personally think that if people start to protest against the building of tracks, they should stop driving their V-engined cars and being submitted to the "consumerism ways" before they blame Global Warming on us.

2nd Question: How many trees get cut down to build a track, 20... 30 I'm not sure, maybe more maybe less. How many tree's and habitat's get bulldozed and land munched up to build 1 farm, or make 10 tables or just to build something like a golf course or a recreational leisure activity centre like that? Of course the fact that we do still chop down trees is a factor, but a large one that should be banned? I think not. Also a track that is built today and maintained will last for a long time, and no grass has to be watered (WE'RE IN A DROUGHT) unlike sporting facilities like Football fields and alike.

Last Question: I should think it would consist of facilities such as a toilet (hey, maybe even a drop toilet, DHer's are tough enough) obviously, a canteen, but apart from that you don't need much else. I suppose you could plant a tree away from the track for everyone that is cut down, or try harder to wind the track around the tree's. An MTB is built for MTB not other forms of entertainment. Other than toilet and a canteen I think no more "facilities" are needed.

If you took the time to read this all I salute you.
Niik

 

[...jim]

There's PLENTY of objection to development or expansion of ski resorts - you'd have buckley's of getting one up in NSW (where all the snow falls in National Parks) and even if you owned the land you'd be pushing it.

But yes, that doesn't stop the odd forest being cleared for the urban sprawl.

It's as much a social thing as it is a historical thing. As we move into to a society where governance, accountability and liability are more prevalent than in the '60s when the skifields were developed there's always going to be someone who (rightly or wrongly) feels that a bit of land is theirs to protect.

This is a good thing.

The onus is on us to prove that what we're doing isn't inconsistant with the environmental protectionist goals of others. In fact the argument that, by giving people a positive expierence in nature, we're actually doing a lot to convert a class that might otherwise not give a toss - is lost on many land managers. It's changing. Slowly.

 

[unitec]

I see a time when we will be able to drive to our local DH/FR track, park in a real car park, get changed & set up your bike in the club house, wheel it out to the covered starting gate & ride down a variety of well groomed tracks lined with spectator seating (even grandstands). After the days riding you could go back to the club house & have a few cold drinks with your mates.
Anyone that has raced at the Dunc Grey velodrome in Sydney would know what a real cycling facility looks & feels like.
Wether this happens through governments & clubs working together or by some entrepreneur setting up a business venture is another question.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Absolutely.

The NPWS complain about erosion from a single mtb trail in thredbo and won't allow any more tracks to be built because it damages the alpine grass, yet like you say there a huge swathes of forest clear felled to make way for ski runs. Infact, the "alpine" grass is only there because they cut all the farkin trees down. Its not like that would cause any erosion

The real reason is skiing makes NPWS alot of money and mtb does not. Apparently making lots of money makes the environmental damage more acceptable........

 

[Trevor_S]

“Is our desire to create more MTB tracks being hampered by our own environmental over sensitivity“

No by money, for as you point out, MTB trails themselves have very little damaging environmental impact . Hypocrisy runs hand in hand with money.

Environmental damage is the flag hoisted by "extremists" that want to keep everything and everyone out if they can. Well constructed MTB tracks and trail have less environmental impact then walking trails but try getting MTB into an NPs an see the resistance you meet. Of course you will always have environmental vandals building crappy track that becomes become popular, leading to degradation etc and usually these are trotted out as selective examples of MTB damage..

I would postulate that most MTB riders are genuine environmentalists. We want the land to stay that way and be looked after because if it is not, we will have no were to ride or enjoy.

Local MTB authorities need to work hard to spread the message to Land Mangers about the advantages of incorporating MTB trails into their land use. How many of us are at minimum MTBA members and/or IMBA and your local MTB Club, showing your support by at least being a MEMBER.