Victorian MTB Representation

pistonbroke

pistonbroke

Eats Squid
ando_assi said:
I kinda Disagree with you...

I agree that we need a high level advocate, but just throwing money at pro trail builders gets us no where...
(they would have to go back every 3 months)

You need to have a grass level advocacy body (like IMBA)
Click to expand...
I don't see it like that. I think you get the funding to get the pros in to do the bulk of the work in consultation with the local crew. Once the trail is complete it is then handed over to the local crew to run and maintain it.
I think that it what has happened down at Lakes Entrance. Of course the Lakes track doesn't yet see the traffic that a major metropolitan area would.
And I think who builds it is critical. Get the wrong people involved and you'll be riding highways, as happened to dirt bike riders in Victoria in every area dse got involved with.
Again, be careful what you wish for.
 
hungrytiger

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
caad9 said:
Having a park ranger onside is a must.

Having thought about this more throughout the day, it would be very handy to be able to see where certain legalisation projects are at.
I'd imagine 80% of riders would have very little idea of the various areas that are 'in the process'
How do people add their support to a project they don't know exists?
Click to expand...
Right. Good points. I think everyone wants more places to ride, but few want to actually do the coalface advocacy. The issue is that those 80% of riders need to be aware of what's going on and identified as supporting the effort in some way (even if that's being a number on a page or part of membership fee).

At my local park we have probably 150 members, and that would be considered to be a big club. That number is miniscule in comparison to the number of users, which would number thousands. These other users may be mtba members or members of nothing, but as far as the advocacy goes they are effectively invisible.
 
caad9

caad9

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I'll make the assumption of Lysterfield, which was probably the best example I had in mind.
The traffic through there on any given weekend would be HUGE.
I guess this is partly your point about having one voice as a mountain bike community.

All those people that ride once or twice a week at Lysty/You Yangs etc, they would be a very powerful tool in terms of numbers backing an idea.
But most of them wouldn't frequent forums/facebook/twitter to know anything about it.

Sorry, I've gone a bit off topic and by no means am I having a go at you.
It's effecting me greatly on the other side of the dandenongs!
 
caad9

caad9

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I was talking about the halt on proceedings at Silvan.
Nothing can be done in there because it's going through 'the process'
 
A

ando_assi

Likes Dirt
As someone who got 3 trails built, that is BS (your ranger in charge, is just stalling)

At the moment, there is no 'process'
YY has one, that in my opinion is 'best practice'
but PV has no official process....
 
caad9

caad9

Likes Bikes and Dirt
That may well be the case, I don't know enough about it.
Only what I am told through the grapevine..
 
hungrytiger

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
I think Silvan riders have prepared a document which has been submitted to PV in accordance with the Guidelines for.MTB on public land PV document. Let's not prejudge the outcome there.
 
Big JD

Big JD

Wheel size expert
Healthy discussion folks- nice one

I am following this discussion with much interest in relation to the Yarra Trails. I hear that Parks would prefer to deal with one group- It would make sense for consistency of communication, strategy and number of stakeholders but each area has a different Parks person - hence the seemingly different approaches, groups and tactics. All decisions ultimately go to the one Parks person in the State- so should they be to first point of contact.

We certainly need to ensure that any proposals tick as many boxes for Parks. They dont have the resources or time to do assessments of the area, impact studies and discuss with all stakeholders. If there was a State group or resource centre that could submit a consistant and thorough template proposition for all trails within Parks.

That template could cover a heap of different requirements like fauna and flora assessment, impact reports, nominated trail builders and post build maintenance plan, trail details, signage, emergency plans and closure strategies for fire, water, rebuilds. It would be great to al be using the same template and structure/ strategy.

Carry on
 
caad9

caad9

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I think you're spot on JD, but I really can't see that happening because then the onus will be back on Parks.
Currently with no guidelines/formula, they can delay or squash the applications as the feel.

I'm still not convinced that having trails 'legalised' is the optimal situation.

In another life I'd be living in the land of the long white cloud, where everyone is covered for genuine accidents and people are much happier for it.
We could learn a lot from NZ
 
Big JD

Big JD

Wheel size expert
caad9 said:
I think you're spot on JD, but I really can't see that happening because then the onus will be back on Parks.
Currently with no guidelines/formula, they can delay or squash the applications as the feel.

I'm still not convinced that having trails 'legalised' is the optimal situation.

In another life I'd be living in the land of the long white cloud, where everyone is covered for genuine accidents and people are much happier for it.
We could learn a lot from NZ
Click to expand...
And we can get local prisoners to do the trail building while they get accredited skills while giving back to the community
 
hungrytiger

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
caad9 said:
I think you're spot on JD, but I really can't see that happening because then the onus will be back on Parks.
Currently with no guidelines/formula, they can delay or squash the applications as the feel.

I'm still not convinced that having trails 'legalised' is the optimal situation.

In another life I'd be living in the land of the long white cloud, where everyone is covered for genuine accidents and people are much happier for it.
We could learn a lot from NZ
Click to expand...
Here you go: http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/514753/2013-01-17-Public-Land-MTB-Guidelines-FINAL-pdf.html

Parks Victoria released it for public consultation 2 years ago , so its not a private internal document. It does contain some of the information you cite.

Its worth noting that when you search for this document, the one thing that does come up is a submission by VNPA http://vnpa.org.au/admin/library/attachments/PDFs/Submissions/sub-mtnbikeguidelines.pdf . Notwithstanding the particulars of their response, it does beg the question what was the representation by the MTB community? Would Parks Vic even know where to send it for comment? Did MTBA get a copy and respond? Did they send it on to all the clubs in Victoria? Did IMBA make a submission? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, perhaps someone does.

Compare and contrast VNPA's approach with our own (if there was any). All I'm saying here is that it is easy to point the finger at PV and yes they have failings, but we should be getting our own house in order too....
 
Last edited:
Big JD

Big JD

Wheel size expert
hungrytiger said:
Sorry , meant to quote from Big JD in my response.
Click to expand...
do you mean there is a draft document in use by Parks that ticks alot of the boxes we need.

I was not having a go at Parks at all- they are under staffed and under resourced and dont have time to tick all the boxes on our behalf. What i am suggesting is that a standard template/ document is used by all MTB groups in their dealings with Parks and that we need to carry more of the load so Parks dont have to. Dont come with issues or requests come with solutions and plans

We have some smart cookies in our mists- zoologists, biologists, hydrologists, every other gist you can think of. Would be great to harness this knowledge and expertise with our submissions to Parks - so they dont have to.
 
hungrytiger

hungrytiger

Likes Dirt
Yes, I see you were not having a go at Parks, that was more a general comment as to some of the other opinions on this thread. Ah the perils of discussing serious topics on farkin... I'm amazed we have got to 4 pages of sensible discussion :thumb:
 
caad9

caad9

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I struggled to take my eyes off the Rock Shox Judy forks in the image.
Those are some classic mountain bikes right there!

I've printed the document out to have a read.
Thanks for that HungryT.
 
Big JD

Big JD

Wheel size expert
hungrytiger said:
Yes, I see you were not having a go at Parks, that was more a general comment as to some of the other opinions on this thread. Ah the perils of discussing serious topics on farkin... I'm amazed we have got to 4 pages of sensible discussion :thumb:
Click to expand...
oh Tiger ye of little faith brother
 
Calvin27

Calvin27

Eats Squid
Would love to see Yarra trail open up - particularly to include some of the existing Yarra bend stuff.

I don't mind going out a bit for a ride, but the annoying thing is some transport would be nice.

A trail connecting to and from Ferntreegully station would be top of my list. There are a few but I never know what's legal or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top