Very positive result
Had a fairly lengthy read of the report today and i really do think that the result we recieved from only 30+ MTB submissions was great.
Have a read through the first section attached section 1.5,this may explain why they recieved so "few" submissions from the MTB community. Correct me if i'm wrong but it seems that submissions that where merely signed replica's of an original template, where not individually counted, they where just counted as 1,so how many submissions did they really recieve?
The second section is why this report is very positive,they used stromlo,parks vic and whistler canada as "examples"!.Thats could not be better,as we know some of the best mountain biking in Austrailia and the world exists in these parks.read it,great result,could've been better(maybe)but sure could have been a lot worse
1.5 Public submissions
A total of 293 submissions were received from a range of individuals, groups and organisations.
A schedule of all submissions received is presented in Appendix 2a. All submissions received are
publicly available on the DECC website <www.environment.nsw.gov.au>.
In addition to submissions received the Taskforce Chair and other members met with key
conservation group representatives from the National Parks Association (NPA) and the Nature
Conservation Council (NCC). The NPA and NCC requested the opportunity to present their
submission to the Taskforce and were also granted the opportunity to submit a supplementary
written submission for Taskforce consideration following their presentation.
The Taskforce consider a submission to be any written documentation received at the advertised
address, or which was clearly intended to be a submission and was addressed to the Taskforce,
the Minister for the Environment or the Minister for Tourism. Written comments in the form of a
letter, facsimile, email, or submission forms from user-groups, businesses, individuals, clubs and
non-government and government agencies were considered individual submissions for the
purpose of this report. All forms of letters (individually signed pre-composed letters) and petitions
(submissions with multiple signatures) were also accepted and considered as a single submission.
Verbal comments were not considered in the review of submissions.
All submissions were handled in accordance with the Privacy and Personal Information Protection
Act 1998, and the NPWS Guide for Privacy and Handling Submissions (2002) was utilised for the
collection, use, storage and disclosure of all personal information contained in the submissions.
Submission analysis procedures
A standardised framework was developed within which submissions were collected, reviewed and
stored, in order to ensure:
all submissions were recorded and logged and located easily if required
all submissions were dealt with consistently
the analysis process reduced individual bias as a number of staff were required to undertake the
qualitative analysis of submissions.
Each submission was date stamped; allocated a unique submission number; photocopied; and
acknowledged by letter or email. The submission number, letter type and the issues identified
were recorded in the database for each submission (refer to appendix 2a).
Comments made in submissions were assessed entirely on the cogency of points raised. No
subjective weighting was given to any for the reason of its origin or any other factor which would
give cause to elevate the importance of one submission above another.
The public submissions to the Taskforce were reviewed in three stages:
1. Public submissions were summarised to allow analysis and the summaries entered into a
database. To ensure a high standard of summary and analysis, the summary methodology was
based on issues raised in the submissions. A summary of the submissions received is presented
in Appendix 2b. Each submission is summarised by listing the issues raised and information
provided. Each submission has been coded with the relevant Taskforce Term(s) of Reference.
2. A schedule of key issues raised in the submissions was prepared and is presented in Appendix
2c. A total of 64 key issues were identified with each one having been raised by between two
and 90 individual submissions. For example, a total of 16 individual submissions raised the issue
that mountain bike riders/cyclists are generally willing to volunteer to help maintain tracks in
national parks, while 69 individual submissions raised the issue of locating visitor infrastructure
outside parks, in surrounding communities.
3. Following the analysis of all submissions received by the Taskforce, the issues were considered
and discussed by the Taskforce in the preparation of this report.
Mountain bike riding/cycling is a growth sport within national parks. Cycling is the 4th most
popular physical activity in Australia and in 2007, 1.47 million bicycles were sold in Australia
Reduce the restrictions on mountain bike riding/cycling in national parks and wilderness areas
to increase visitation to parks
Mountain bikers/cyclists are willing to assist and volunteer to help maintain off road trails within
national parks. Suggests opening up single trails to sustainable recreational cycling to increase
tourist visitation and increase national park use
Create and promote long walks/trails within national parks, 3–5 days in length. Connect the
current series of stand alone walks into a longer more ‘iconic’ walk
57
Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks in NSW Report 2008
Support for private conservation or ecotourism development in national parks that is
demonstrated to be compatible with conservation values of each park. Agreement that tourism
activities and infrastructure must remain low key, blend with the existing environment and
have minimal impact. Requests that more support be given to commercial operators currently
in national parks
To minimise environmental impacts and as a cost-saving measure, it is suggested that existing
facilities within national parks be managed. Commercial tourism operators should be focusing
on national parks which have existing facilities
Commercial tourism operations should be reviewed and only allowed access to national parks
based on stringent standards and a code of conduct to ensure environmental protection is
maintained. Proposes that all tourism operators within national parks be eco-accredited
Kosciuszko National Park (KMP) has a multitude of tourism opportunities available as well as
existing constraints to these operations. Opportunities exist for current stand-alone walking
trails to be connected together for walking or bike riding trails. It was suggested to build
a Kosciuszko Alpine Exploration Park to provide state of the art facilities for education and
training, scientific activities to cater for year round tourists. A much discussed idea is the
development of the Thredbo to Bullocks Flat multi-use trail project as an example of DECC
response to increasing visitor experiences. Constraints include the fact that there is no summer
public transport to KNP, and a need for higher recognition of tourism and recreation to occur
within PoMs
Encourage master planning for the delivery of ‘experiences’ at the landscape scale. Must be
undertaken with a coalition of key players, with parks and tourism representatives in a forefront
role
There is a need to identify national parks’ target market. Identification of target markets needs
to be in partnership with national and state tourism authorities and aligned with state tourism
strategies, e.g. Tourism NSW should identify the profile of the ideal nature tourist target market
to increase visitation
To increase visitation to national parks, there is an immediate need to improve planning and
maintenance of tracks and trails for all users
The following are tourism activities identified as good examples of sustainable and suitable
tourism opportunities and their perceived conservation benefits:
Stromlo Forest Park, Canberra; The seven stanes network, Scotland; and Whistler Mountain
Bike Park, Canada demonstrate sustainable management of cycling can increase visitation,
user satisfaction and appreciation of an area
Walking track along Coffs Creek in Coffs Harbour is an example of sensitive development
which improves access and use of public land in the heart of a tourist centre and provides a
natural experience without impacting on a national park
Examples of successful communities and governments working together to provide
managed trail networks and cycling facilities:
– Stromlo Forest Park (ACT)
– Thredbo (NSW)
– Manly Dam (NSW)
– Blue Mountains (NSW), e.g. Oaks Trail
– Otway Ranges (VIC)
– City of Mitchem (SA)
