Slowman
Likes Dirt
Yes there are NPWS logoed signs actually warning of the diversion.Just to confirm (because I get the feeling people are confused), the diversion on the NORTHERN side of the creek is all sanctioned.
Nobody is arguing that these guys don't have good intentions...or that the quality of the work is bad, or even that it's not the sensible thing, it's just that it is illegal. Most land managers consider their land, similar to the way you or I would consider our own private property, we decide who does what on it, no one else. There are some good reasons beyond simple dominion, since there is a small possibility, that the land owner/manager will be liable for hazards. If you were going to allow access, and then further, allow modifications, you'd want to be sure that your risks and liabilities were kept manageable and that necessarily entails consideration all changes before giving any approvals.This is a good point. It would be good to see bigger volunteer turnouts. However, I think that the reason hardly anyone turns up to maintenance days is because they are tired of doing the maintenance on just 1 trail: the Loftus loop (Saville's Creek track), especially seeing as there is not much else we are allowed to do to modify it. We MTBers really only have that 1 track to ourselves in the RNP, and I would estimate the MTB community has become rather disenchanted with it. I am not speaking personally, this is just speculation.
Now, it is quite likely that those who built this unsanctioned new diversion on the Creek Trail (Holey Trail, whatever you want to call it) knew what they were doing was illegal. Yet they did it anyway. Does anyone writing here really think these people responsible for the work are going to stop doing such maintenance jobs just because 20 people in cyberspace don't approve of it? Really, they could be doing a lot worse than they are. They are not acting with malicious intent. They are not ripping up the forest and laying down whole new trails. They are building high, dry and sustainable diversions to bypass increasingly damaged mud zones, trying to make this track a better riding experience for all who use it. Perhaps they have failed in some peoples eyes. Yet they are trying, and at the very least, I can appreciate the effort. We all wish RNP would do such maintenance work themselves, but at the moment they are not. And really, this trail is not even officially an 'authorised' MTB trail anyway. To those who claim they should have more right and more say about this trails layout because they have been riding it longer; really, they have just been breaking the law the longest, for this trail is not an authorised MTB track. You admit to using this trail illegally, then condemn others for a similar act. Thats called hypocrisy. I myself love riding this trail. Who am I to point fingers at who does what. If the RNP want to take action, they will. I just hate the idea of any RNP reps reading a forum like this and seeing how divided the MTB community is on such topics. I would much prefer them to read a forum full of positive, like-minded comments about the improving condition of trails, how much we MTBers love the 'unauthorised' trails, and how we would love to be part of a regular maintenance team that worked on not just 1 small section of trail, but a much larger network.
If the people doing this unsanctioned trail building are actually reading this, I caution them to be careful not to overdo things. I appreciate your zeal, but please keep your repairs and maintenance simple. To everyone else, I simply say love your local trails and be a positive voice for them.
It's a nice idea that we as mountain bikers could all sit around the camp fire singing Koombaya in a repose of unity and all say we think some minor illegal trail building is good and you should let us to NPWS but I don't think it will work. Allow me to go back to my own personal property analogy again. It would be like if a bunch of the neighbors got together and were all in agreement that I should let them use my driveway as a basketball court. I have to say I'm afraid their unity wouldn't sway me in the least. That is assuming they came and asked me first. To be completely equivalent I come home and find them just playing already. In that position what would your reaction be?
You need to hear your own argument coming back at you from the opposite direction.
I take Steve's point about presenting unity when in a negotiation but first you have to unite behind the right strategy if you are going to succeed. As politics shows us divided squabbling parties don't do well at the polls but success requires more than just unity.
I will tell you right now NPWS do not monitor these forums to get a gauge on MTB unity (as if this place is truly representative anyway).