VIC Lysterfield Park

Cranker

Likes Dirt
Hang on a minute!!
There are North shore shits at Lysterfield?
Where about are these trails you guys speaking of?
 

silentbutdeadly

Eats Squid
Full credit to PV, that letter is well done. And undersold. Cultural heritage legislation is one of the biggest challenges for MTB trails to overcome. Basically because the legislation says you can't dig without​ approval and supervision of a registered aboriginal party. Or, in the absence of a RAP, the local community reps. But then there's the biodiversity stuff as well so you can't go clearing overground either.

And the argument that a track has been there 20 years...a site of cultural significance has been there for potentially tens of thousands of years so it's best not to get too high and mighty there either.

Our track has significant cultural sites in and around it. We abandoned nearly a kilometre and a half after a burial site was identified in a sandhill over which we had a pine log boardwalk trail. This trail represented hundreds of hours of work by members to stabilise and create...And we agreed willingly that we had had no other option but to abandon it and remove the boardwalk. It sucks but it's fair. And by playing fair...We still get to play. The rule on our track is no dig and no building outside our agreed plan of management.
 

ctguru

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Full credit to PV, that letter is well done. And undersold. Cultural heritage legislation is one of the biggest challenges for MTB trails to overcome. Basically because the legislation says you can't dig without​ approval and supervision of a registered aboriginal party. Or, in the absence of a RAP, the local community reps. But then there's the biodiversity stuff as well so you can't go clearing overground either.

And the argument that a track has been there 20 years...a site of cultural significance has been there for potentially tens of thousands of years so it's best not to get too high and mighty there either.

Our track has significant cultural sites in and around it. We abandoned nearly a kilometre and a half after a burial site was identified in a sandhill over which we had a pine log boardwalk trail. This trail represented hundreds of hours of work by members to stabilise and create...And we agreed willingly that we had had no other option but to abandon it and remove the boardwalk. It sucks but it's fair. And by playing fair...We still get to play. The rule on our track is no dig and no building outside our agreed plan of management.
I haven't read the legislation, but the trail has been there longer than the legislation creation date. I do understand that heritage would have been there for hundreds of years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Cranker

Likes Dirt
I haven't read the legislation, but the trail has been there longer than the legislation creation date. I do understand that heritage would have been there for hundreds of years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So when Boral Quarries needed land to dig for more rocks they just moved the boundary fence!
I wonder what happened to the sensitive Aboriginal area in that scenario?
 

silentbutdeadly

Eats Squid
I haven't read the legislation, but the trail has been there longer than the legislation creation date. I do understand that heritage would have been there for hundreds of years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Doesn't matter what came first. Trail or legislation. All sites containing 'cultural material, known and unknown' are protected under Victorian law. And pretty much any other Australian state law for that matter.

Cultural legislation is the trump card in Victoria and it has the power to direct PVs work (and they have to work with it as well). Work with it and within it yourselves or your hair will turn orange and your dreams of sweet trail will turn to nought.
 

ctguru

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I think Parks need to stress on the sign the reason for closing the trail. I'm not going to ride it anymore, but if you did a survey I bet 90% of the people who ride the trail would be locals gaining access to Lystie and have been riding that trail for many many many years. Locals see it as a legal trail as it has previously been raced on and maintained.

I would say on the sign that this trail is now closed and stress the heritage and weed issues, not that it's closed because it's illegal.



I would put the emphasis on the bottom information on the sign and not the top illegal stuff. I think you would get better compliance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

silentbutdeadly

Eats Squid
I think Parks need to stress on the sign the reason for closing the trail. I'm not going to ride it anymore, but if you did a survey I bet 90% of the people who ride the trail would be locals gaining access to Lystie and have been riding that trail for many many many years. Locals see it as a legal trail as it has previously been raced on and maintained.

I would say on the sign that this trail is now closed and stress the heritage and weed issues, not that it's closed because it's illegal.



I would put the emphasis on the bottom information on the sign and not the top illegal stuff. I think you would get better compliance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can not disagree...
 

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
Its.probably the way in which PV have approached this issue which will somewhat guarantee that it will not be successful. No consultation on any level and treating all trails as if they present the same issues and risks when they clearly don't. The area between the boulders and Wellington Rd is all the lowest environmental value according to pv's own overlays, which is one of the reasons they have tolerated the tracks there (the walking track to the servo has existed for decades). Most of the other tracks have been there for years to, some with more impact than others; but this failure to engage in any discussion about this with the park users will ultimately be it's undoing. A better approach would be a bit of give and take like when areas.of buckle were closed off, no-one rides there now.because of the way in which it.was approached. Unfortunately they could have probably leveraged the heritage argument by explaining where it specifically applied, rather than just sticking it on every single contractor erected sign for shock value (because it far outstrips the other fines).
 

silentbutdeadly

Eats Squid
Its.probably the way in which PV have approached this issue which will somewhat guarantee that it will not be successful. No consultation on any level and treating all trails as if they present the same issues and risks when they clearly don't. The area between the boulders and Wellington Rd is all the lowest environmental value according to pv's own overlays, which is one of the reasons they have tolerated the tracks there (the walking track to the servo has existed for decades). Most of the other tracks have been there for years to, some with more impact than others; but this failure to engage in any discussion about this with the park users will ultimately be it's undoing. A better approach would be a bit of give and take like when areas.of buckle were closed off, no-one rides there now.because of the way in which it.was approached. Unfortunately they could have probably leveraged the heritage argument by explaining where it specifically applied, rather than just sticking it on every single contractor erected sign for shock value (because it far outstrips the other fines).
They can't demonstrate where cultural heritage starts and stops. Because they don't know. And not knowing is no longer an excuse. By act or omission. They're the words. And PV, some councils and even DELWP have been pinged already so they don't have too much sympathy for a bunch of mildly irritated MTB riders.

Putting the signs up means they've exercised their duty of care. So if you ride there then the shit is on you. That's how the law works. They've shifted blame onto users and if one of the TO's pings you then their could be grief for you and your bank account.
 

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
Ok thanks, I've done some reading on it. It appears it is an issue. So hypothetically someone found "something" and that means the entire area is off limits from now on except management tracks. Only certain people can access the heritage database to find out what that "something" was.

There are heritage sites in the main park too, I wonder how that will affect park activities in the future.
 

UL7R4

Squid
My bet is they found Nothing. Probably the best angle parks could come from, people will bork at the fines.

So Im calling Bull$%^T, There have been heaps of contractors doing drainage works all around there with No cultural Spotters looking for artifacts.

Even the bobcats that dug up all the foliage just mowed through anything (before the burn) again under no supervision..

I will all calm down and we can dig there again.
 

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
I agree it is odd, maybe we will find out out one day. My view of PV is a little more positive than yours, but theres no doubt some weird stuff going on there at the moment - seems like there are some anti MTB people rising in the ranks (see what is happening at Warramate as an example there).

My personal favourite from recent months was the vast swathes of land that that were glyphosphated (in stripes). I reckon theres a few less frogs in lysty and down in birdsland as a result. Don't even get me started on the fire prevention works.... :)
 

ctguru

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Parks don't want mountain biking (off the designated fire trails) in the northern expansion of Lysterfield Lake, end of story
 

redbruce

Eats Squid
My personal favourite from recent months was the vast swathes of land that that were glyphosphated (in stripes). I reckon theres a few less frogs in lysty and down in birdsland as a result. Don't even get me started on the fire prevention works.... :)
Parks don't want mountain biking (off the designated fire trails) in the northern expansion of Lysterfield Lake, end of story
Your informed views, or just supposition?

Main threat to frogs is actually the surfactant used with glyphosate, if used (http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/australian-frogs-overview). However I've not been able to find data to support either of our cases.

Common assumption is glyphosate is rapidly degraded in nature.
New research by my research group will show that assumption is likely flawed (by traditional insensitive analytical methods) and wrong. But so far restricted to grains and associated soils, so no idea on impact on frogs.

Perhaps we should perhaps be guarded in our claims.

"Environmental burning" is topical but has history. Evidence at Lysty shows a reduction in exotic weeds (rye grass and thistle) as a result.

Given the poor air quality a couple of weeks ago due to mass burns around Melbourne, I do wonder if health risk has been factored in though.

Tracks (single trail) are still open in Northern part. No evidence of (intended or otherwise) broad scale closure.
 
Last edited:
Top