NSW NPWS Sustainable Mountainbiking Strategy

crank1979

crank1979

Likes Bikes and Dirt
That was a real surprise today. I was a bit worried reading the summary of comments made regarding the MTBing in NSW National Parks discussion paper because they seemed to try and balance each section with positives and negatives. The MTB Strategy looks pretty positive though. I'm looking forward to seeing how it is implemented in different parks.

Glenrock gets a good rap thoughout everything. Well done to those involved up there.
 
bikesarefun

bikesarefun

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Call me selfish, but the main point I took out of this is there won't be a place for legal freeride or dirt jumps in National Parks, and DH doesn't look like it will get much of run either.


Oh well... maybe one day they'll learn that the only way to combat illegal freeride/dj/DH areas is to provide some good quality legal ones!
 
S

sammydog

NSWMTB, Hunter MTB Association
I think they will come.......slowly.

We are now looking at technical descents in Glenrock (just don't use DH), and in the old tip site we are investigating the potential for small/medium scale freeride/skills type stuff.

I actually read into the strategy that the door is more open than before, lets call it ajar. It will really just be a case of slowly progressing towards them so the NPWS don't get scared off.

With Glenrock we have used that approach from the start. First it was shut mtb out of the park, then we could do minor maintenance with supervision, then slight trail tweaks within the trail corridor, then we were given wider berth to reroute outside the corridor if it made things sustainable. Weve started now adding some really technical features and most recently are looking at descending trails. It just takes time to earn trust when your dealing with new territory.
 
crank1979

crank1979

Likes Bikes and Dirt
sammydog said:
I actually read into the strategy that the door is more open than before, lets call it ajar. It will really just be a case of slowly progressing towards them so the NPWS don't get scared off.
Click to expand...
Yes it seems like there is more opportunity for mtbers in this strategy than I had thought there would be. The number of Priority Project Areas even seems to have increased from 5 in the discussion paper to 7 in the strategy. Hopefully this will encourage more people to get involved in maintenance days and other activities to show NPWS that they are making the right decisions and that we can help guide their decision making processes in ways that will benefit everyone, but especially mtbers. :)
 
nrthrnben

nrthrnben

Likes Dirt
sammydog said:
I think they will come.......slowly.

We are now looking at technical descents in Glenrock (just don't use DH), and in the old tip site we are investigating the potential for small/medium scale freeride/skills type stuff.

I actually read into the strategy that the door is more open than before, lets call it ajar. It will really just be a case of slowly progressing towards them so the NPWS don't get scared off.

With Glenrock we have used that approach from the start. First it was shut mtb out of the park, then we could do minor maintenance with supervision, then slight trail tweaks within the trail corridor, then we were given wider berth to reroute outside the corridor if it made things sustainable. Weve started now adding some really technical features and most recently are looking at descending trails. It just takes time to earn trust when your dealing with new territory.
Click to expand...




+1 agreed its not all bad news, and after all,the descending side of an all mountain trail is Downhill,like stonefly at buller :)
 
Last edited:
Moggio

Moggio

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Dealing at the moment with permission with a DH trail and having to describe what DH is to people who have no idea but have this great fear that a DH trail is somehow really exteme, where some of that being "extreme" is the riding itself, but more so the vibe of the whole DH thing seems to be extreme and therefore off putting.

As I explain to them a DH trail is really a trail that doesn't have uphills in it.. by its nature of going down it needs to be a certain length pretty much time wise to make it worthwhile at around 3 minutes, longer the better. That real is about it.

How hard and technical that trail is then up to the trail design and is really relatively irrelvant to other issues if built properly. The concept of a traill that only goes down the hill and isn't too technical is attractive for XC riders hence the Skyline/Luge section at Stromolo or Cressy Climb at You Yangs. Same idea just not as difficult.

In the end I think the distint lines between styles and all the different names will have to blur and they will just become different types of trail difficulties in different types of designs. Hit them in the gear and bike of your choice and either roll, them pump them or spend time in the air however you want.
 
Ridenparadise

Ridenparadise

Likes Bikes and Dirt
2.2 Frame of reference
The first step in planning is to set a frame of reference by considering factors relating to sustainability, liability, infrastructure management and maintenance. By answering questions about the proposed development early on and sticking to the framework provided by the answers, unexpected liabilities may be avoided.
The frame of reference questions address the following issues, which are detailed in Appendix II:  scope and scale  objectives  market
 product  standards  delivery  management  funding and resources.

When I contributed to this I thought the end result was going to be hundreds of pages like what is quoted above. In fact in the entire document that bit is about the only piece of typical, NPWS, pen-pusher rubbish I could find.

I can't believe how positive the discussion paper is! What an amazing outcome. Not only does it shine a positive light on MTB overall, it allows for everything a local trailbuilder could ask for, the chance to have input, the chance to expand over time, the chance to be asked an opinion etc. It also seems to allow for the potential for uplift, not just by quoting Thredbo, but by including "balance" for competing user groups (DH in this context could be considered competition with XC as well as walkers etc) and the ability to provide resources to "maintain" the experience. As we know, the trend to uplift is international and with the chance to offer business opportunities (with some form of payback to the NPWS) there may be uplift options down the track.

This has to be the most positive single political step in the the history of MTB in our country. I cannot help but be excited after so many years of criticising the NPWS and their exclusionist attitude. I never thought I would feel a sense of expanding freedom from the powers that be, but here there is a chance that on a local level, with official support, we have a future of quality MTB with research to back up the outcomes, add weight to the health benefits of our sport and increase advocacy in our public land management.

In addition, the technology commitment is refreshing. We have no signs in our local park once you leave the boundary (in fact at one place only is there a sign). How cool to be able to maybe use a QR code on a trail sign to link to an up-to-date trail map when you are somewhere in the bush and light is fading fast?

A big thumbs up to the NSW NPWS and all those involved in this project. I am so impressed.
 
GeurieMTB

GeurieMTB

Likes Dirt
Agreed, the strategy is everything wed hoped it could be. We were never going to get DH into this first bite at MTBing so this is great. As well as the priority areas there is a structure in place for implementation elsewhere, as appropriate.

Its just a shame that it wasnt signed off last friday so that our "Western NSW launch" of the document on Sunday at Beni SCA could actually have had the document. the event went well, parks staff very happy and already talking about another event, so all's good
 
Wiffle

Wiffle

Likes Dirt
Ridenparadise said:
2.2 Frame of reference
The first step in planning is to set a frame of reference by considering factors relating to sustainability, liability, infrastructure management and maintenance. By answering questions about the proposed development early on and sticking to the framework provided by the answers, unexpected liabilities may be avoided.
The frame of reference questions address the following issues, which are detailed in Appendix II:  scope and scale  objectives  market
 product  standards  delivery  management  funding and resources.

When I contributed to this I thought the end result was going to be hundreds of pages like what is quoted above. In fact in the entire document that bit is about the only piece of typical, NPWS, pen-pusher rubbish I could find.

I can't believe how positive the discussion paper is! What an amazing outcome. Not only does it shine a positive light on MTB overall, it allows for everything a local trailbuilder could ask for, the chance to have input, the chance to expand over time, the chance to be asked an opinion etc. It also seems to allow for the potential for uplift, not just by quoting Thredbo, but by including "balance" for competing user groups (DH in this context could be considered competition with XC as well as walkers etc) and the ability to provide resources to "maintain" the experience. As we know, the trend to uplift is international and with the chance to offer business opportunities (with some form of payback to the NPWS) there may be uplift options down the track.

This has to be the most positive single political step in the the history of MTB in our country. I cannot help but be excited after so many years of criticising the NPWS and their exclusionist attitude. I never thought I would feel a sense of expanding freedom from the powers that be, but here there is a chance that on a local level, with official support, we have a future of quality MTB with research to back up the outcomes, add weight to the health benefits of our sport and increase advocacy in our public land management.

In addition, the technology commitment is refreshing. We have no signs in our local park once you leave the boundary (in fact at one place only is there a sign). How cool to be able to maybe use a QR code on a trail sign to link to an up-to-date trail map when you are somewhere in the bush and light is fading fast?

A big thumbs up to the NSW NPWS and all those involved in this project. I am so impressed.
Click to expand...
+1. Stoked with the overall result, and keen to see (and help) implementation!
 
E

enduroexplorer.com

Likes Bikes
The strategy document is amazingly positive. Still have to say that I am disappointed with the direction in the Royal National Park. At our local forum it was pointed out that we need to improve linking of trails to create a decent length loop and that is not highlighted in the document. The total length of legal single track in the Royal NP is about 2km and that is split into 3 seperate sections. It would be great to get a real loop built in the area to the south of Kirrawee.

If you don't feel like reading all 48 pages I have summarised it here.

Linda
www.EnduroExplorer.com
 
crank1979

crank1979

Likes Bikes and Dirt
enduroexplorer.com said:
The strategy document is amazingly positive. Still have to say that I am disappointed with the direction in the Royal National Park. At our local forum it was pointed out that we need to improve linking of trails to create a decent length loop and that is not highlighted in the document. The total length of legal single track in the Royal NP is about 2km and that is split into 3 seperate sections. It would be great to get a real loop built in the area to the south of Kirrawee.

Linda
www.EnduroExplorer.com
Click to expand...
Your point about the RNP might be worth highlighting at the upcoming maintenance day on the 15th of October. They are held on the 3rd Saturday of every month.

More info here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top