[NSW] Mountain Biking Discussion Paper

[grimzentide]

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service is considering a new approach to the management of mountain biking that includes providing mountain biking tracks in a small number of our national parks where the location is suitable, there is strong demand for the activity, and environmental impacts can be managed.

We don't get many chances to fill these kinds of things out and it could result in more legal trails.

Have your say here.
https://mountainbiking.discussions.nsw.gov.au/

 

[KWICKS]

Just read the paper. It's thorough, inclusive, speaks our language, and promises to lead to great trails for all. Bring it on! Well done NPWS.

 

[nikmcc]

We need EVERYONE to get in on this one!!!

 

[DHdreamer]

Weekend homework

Too right! This is well worth spending some time on over the weekend. Let's get on it, Rotorburners!

 

[dcrofty]

Guys, single person here needs to write in and make a submission on this. Preferably a personal letter or email (doesn't have to be long) saying what you do or don't like about the proposal.

Remember the result we got when Manly dam was shut down. There was a flood of letters and emails to council and they snapped to attention and opened the track again pretty quickly once they got those so get writing everyone.

Individual letters/emails will likely get a better response than form letters or facebook groups too.

 

[nikmcc]

Guys, single person here needs to write in and make a submission on this. Preferably a personal letter or email (doesn't have to be long) saying what you do or don't like about the proposal...

Comments should be received by close of business 19 October 2010 and:

mailed to Cycling Policy and Mountain Biking Strategy, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 1481

emailed to mountain.biking@environment.nsw.gov.au

 

[maxwolfie]

Printing off to have a good read while I am bed, letter this weekend.

Get on it

 

[unitec]

Just read the paper. It's thorough, inclusive, speaks our language, and promises to lead to great trails for all. Bring it on! Well done NPWS.

How do you figure? It has excluded DH FR & DJ. Talk about driving a wedge into the MTB community.

 

[Moggio]

How do you figure? It has excluded DH FR & DJ. Talk about driving a wedge into the MTB community.

It has split them but there are different requirments... however the lines between the various styles are getting more and more blurred as well. A very technical XC descent is pretty much a simpler DH trail.. somewhere like You Yangs does that very well.

DH and FR also don't quite meet two of the criteria in their reasonably tread careful report. Firstly a DH trail is much harder to build in a sustainable manner that would meet the requirments of NPWS. Obviously DH can be build sustainably but it could be in the too hard basket at the moment. Secondly they won't be cutting new trails, they will making sustainable what is already existing if it is deemed suitable to be sustainable.

I think however if it can be shown that NPWS have a positive attitude to riders and we end up with good XC sustainable trails in national parks with riders helping build and less illegal building it will only reflect very favourably on the whole mtb community. Then councils would be much more ready to accept the respected decisions of the NPWS on riders and possibly allow for more on their land in all idioms of riding... then maybe NPWS would do the same too (Thredbo after all is DH in a NP in a sensitive area).

 

[nrthrnben]

Do all we can to support all Disciplines

How do you figure? It has excluded DH FR & DJ. Talk about driving a wedge into the MTB community.

Yeah looks a little biased, in reality they just need to be shown/reminded, that sustainable downhill trails can be built and are appropriate if build correctly.

Its also important to remember that this is a strategy, so if disciplines are not included now, they may very well get left out of parks for good!

If you notice the Mountain Biking Styles section of "have your say" just about every submission so far has been in favor of sustainable downhill trails to be included.

This is not something new, it has been done with overwhelming success the world over.

I will do all i can to promote this everywhere, if everyone does this, we will arrive at the desired result.

Remember, don't just think of your preferred discipline, rather think of the larger picture, and make sure all MTB Disciplines that can be built sustainably are catered for as it has been done everywhere else in AUS and the rest of the world.

It will be amazing to have a network of sustainable IBMA standard Cross country, All mountain and Downhill trails in our back yard!

 

[Jackstack]

Yeah looks a little biased, in reality they just need to be shown/reminded, that sustainable downhill trails can be built and are appropriate if build correctly.

Its also important to remember that this is a strategy, so if disciplines are not included now, they may very well get left out of parks for good!

If you notice the Mountain Biking Styles section of "have your say" just about every submission so far has been in favor of sustainable downhill trails to be included.

This is not something new, it has been done with overwhelming success the world over.

I will do all i can to promote this everywhere, if everyone does this, we will arrive at the desired result.

Remember, don't just think of your preferred discipline, rather think of the larger picture, and make sure all MTB Disciplines that can be built sustainably are catered for as it has been done everywhere else in AUS and the rest of the world.

It will be amazing to have a network of sustainable IBMA standard Cross country, All mountain and Downhill trails in our back yard!

Pretty much what I was gonna say.
What we don't need as a community is bozo's getting on and commenting that, " we are the ones building the illegal tracks that they want to get rid of. we have the power, they need to start working with us!!". Ain't gonna help methinks.

 

[Arete]

I preclude this post with the fact I will probably get shouted down as a confused greenie again

1. Is there an organisation to represent the MTBers in negotiations? It would be exceptionally useful to a) have a body for NPWS to liaise with and b) for them to have a simple polygon GIS layer done with NP land divided up into catergorised levels of potential for mtb use - i.e. high for the areas of the Royal already heavily used, low for the gibber plains in Sturt NP. This would be pretty easy to do for someone with basic GIS skills and ARCview and give whoever is making the decisions an instantly overlayable dataset of where people want to ride. Hell NPWS makes the GIS data of critical habitat, endangered animal sightings and trail networks etc available on request so even a meta-analysis of high demand, low conservation areas with suitable existing trail networks etc would pretty easy and we could come to the table having already identified the best areas to implement the new strategy.

I think that would be an unprecedented level of stakeholder co-operation/goodwill for a situation like this and let the riders have an active role in identifying the places they want to ride rather than NPWS trying to figure it out.

2. There's a number of issues with DH. Firstly Ski resorts like Whistler and Thredbo, are heavily modified areas with buildings, bulldozed ski runs, lifts etc and so on, so where the bike trails are is of pretty much zero conservation value. They also require some sort of infrastructure to get riders to the top of the trail. There wouldn't be too many locations in NP's where you have a highly modified environment, on a decent gradient with a suitable access trail for shuttling. As for DJ parks - you're really looking at an impact more in line with traditional sporting facilities when compared to a trail, so you're probably better off looking to council areas for legitimacy.

I mean it's fine to submit personal submissions requesting DH facilities but I think it's important to stay fairly family friendly and non threatening as a user group at least until the relationship proves established and mutually beneficial. It's a pretty unique opportunity to come across as a legitimate user group willing to work with NPWS and other stakeholders to establish some amazing facilities.

3. The other major issue is user groups. The stakeholders that NPWS gets the most financial, political and ideological backing from are the birdwatcher/bushwalker/landcare retirees, who will already no doubt be pissed about this proposal. I'll bet that NPWS will be selling this hard as healthy, accessible outdoor exercise for the whole family and trying hard to avoid the image of letting in dudes in full armor pinning runs/ the extreme sports image. This would be to minimize the image of us as being incompatible with current users, as being a move away from core conservation objectives and to prevent pressure from other so called extreme sports who want in.

The main opposition to this will be the above mentioned retired walker types and a functional relationship with them will be important in any trail and facility development and management. Now more than ever it's important to say hi and chat with them. If they see us as sunglassed and rude menaces of the trail it's going to be pulling teeth every step of the way.

 

[nrthrnben]

I preclude this post with the fact I will probably get shouted down as a confused greenie again

1. Is there an organisation to represent the MTBers in negotiations?

I think that would be an unprecedented level of stakeholder co-operation/goodwill for a situation like this and let the riders have an active role in identifying the places they want to ride rather than NPWS trying to figure it out..

http://nobmob.com/node/11175

2. There's a number of issues with DH. Firstly Ski resorts like Whistler and Thredbo, are heavily modified areas with buildings, bulldozed ski runs, lifts etc and so on, so where the bike trails are is of pretty much zero conservation value. They also require some sort of infrastructure to get riders to the top of the trail. There wouldn't be too many locations in NP's where you have a highly modified environment, on a decent gradient with a suitable access trail for shuttling. As for DJ parks - you're really looking at an impact more in line with traditional sporting facilities when compared to a trail, so you're probably better off looking to council areas for legitimacy.

As NPWS is the Majority landowner in our region, there are very few alternatives alternatives

DH has also been implemented into parks and sensitive area's all over the world,sustainably and with huge success.

The evidence is that this approach reduces greatly the need for informal construction of DH trails.

All that is needed is a shuttle road, and there is massive amounts of very wide fire roads that have cut through the same environments which could be used with little or no modification for shuttles.

Also many places around the world opt to put in gondolas to help walkers,bikers etc get to the top, which it in itself is an experience.

http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/1park_display.cfm?park=208

http://www.parkweb.vic.gov.au/resources05/05_2103.pdf

3. The other major issue is user groups. The stakeholders that NPWS gets the most financial, political and ideological backing from are the birdwatcher/bushwalker/landcare retirees, who will already no doubt be pissed about this proposal. I'll bet that NPWS will be selling this hard as healthy, accessible outdoor exercise for the whole family and trying hard to avoid the image of letting in dudes in full armor pinning runs/ the extreme sports image. This would be to minimize the image of us as being incompatible with current users, as being a move away from core conservation objectives and to prevent pressure from other so called extreme sports who want in.

Because a rider is wearing Armour, it does not negate his right to be in the bush. It also doesn't move away from conservation values and enjoyment of the natural environment.

The issue is sustainability,suitability and viability.

DH the world over has been implemented sustainably, first environmental studies are conducted and the trail is built to suit.

Just as is the case with multi million dollar walking trails with steps,boardwalks bridges etc.

Remember all disciplines can be built sustainably, there suitability and viability to the park in question is the issue.

Many informal DH trails all across Australia, have been running sustainably with only volunteer maintenance and little funding for many years, the key is to make sure(for the greater good) the DH trails that are not sustainable are shut, and new ones are built to world class standards.

 

[crank1979]

I put my comments in yesterday.

As of about 8am this morning this discussion paper had more comments than the NSW BikePlan did!

I only remember reading one semi-negative comment regarding the Proposed Approach and everything else looked positive.

It would be interesting to read the comments that get emailed in as well. I wonder if that is where most/any opposition will go?

 

[maxwolfie]

Sent an email off this morning.

 

[grimzentide]

I have been reading the comments each day and I came across the first anti-bike comment. While we may not agree with all of her points, it does show that the walkers/conservationists/non bikers/etc will also reply in numbers to this paper. If you haven't replied to the paper yet, make sure you do. If you have already, make sure your riding buddies do too.

Janet Walker
September 11th, 2010 at 12:12 pm · Reply
I like the idea of pushing them somewhere else – national parks are for the conservation and the appreciation of nature and cultural heritage – not recreational pursuits.

We don’t have football fields in our national parks, so why should we have downhill tracks in our parks??

IMHO, the discussion paper places an inappropriate emphasis on NPWS needing to satisfy this recreational demand. I like bike touring on trails and roads through parks but anything more is inappropriate.

 

[Arete]

I was loosely involved with NPWS working Rusa Deer control in the Royal. They considered whether recreational hunters might have a role in that control and asked for a submission. They got a manifesto demanding hunting in all National Parks and a list of 45 species, including native species they demanded authority to shoot.

Recreational hunters have no involvement in Rusa Deer control. That said you probably could "sustainably" manage a national park for recreational shooters, shooting 45 species of animal. It would no longer be a national park however - it'd be a game reserve.

It's somewhat important to demonstrate the ability of MTBers to fit into the user framework and ethos of the Parks system rather than demand them to be managed purely for MTB.

 

[DHdreamer]

This thread is full of useful constructive points that I find encouraging. I certainly think that this is a fantastic move from NPWS and their willingness to engage is great.

I'm interested in people's views about the user-pays idea - presumably to help contribute to trail building and any infrastructure. I wouldn't mind paying a small contribution to NPWS when I go riding on potential future National Park trails (or maybe a National Parks MTB membership), which goes into their trail development / sustainment funding...much like I pay to enter the Snowies when I go boarding.

I'm going to question why NPWS wants to set its own standards for track design. IMBA - our peak body here - has set what sounds like appropriate standards and NPWS will use them in the interim. For the sake of consistency I will suggest that they adopt them outright.

Looking forward to getting my sub in this week and spreading the word to my buddies!

 

[maxwolfie]

More than happy to pay a small fee. Why shouldn't we?

 

[unitec]

No to user pays

I'm interested in people's views about the user-pays idea - presumably to help contribute to trail building and any infrastructure. I wouldn't mind paying a small contribution to NPWS when I go riding on potential future National Park trails (or maybe a National Parks MTB membership), which goes into their trail development / sustainment funding...much like I pay to enter the Snowies when I go boarding.

I would be very much opposed to user pays system as the minute that government sees a revenue stream coming into one of it’s government bodies it cuts funding ensuring that the body is forever addicted to such revenues. Once addicted to the user pay system the NPWS service would be at the mercy of the user group that payed the most and be compromised in it’s ability to manage the parks sustainability. (look what governments have done to universities)
In my opinion this would be the thin edge of the wedge that could ultimately see parks commercialised (or even privatised) which would be a tragedy.
The only feasible user pay system as I see it is the entry fee system we already have that is blind to the user group entering the park.
If this cannot be done in a sustainable way that protects the parks long term and includes ALL MTB disciplines I would prefer that it didn’t go ahead at all.