Formerly Farkin.net - News | Forums
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Royal National Park Management plan. Have your say

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    63

    Default Royal National Park Management plan. Have your say


  2. #2
    Senior Member Nerf Herder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,816

    Default

    Bumping ... Get on this peeps, even if you are out of state ... They want to even ban All Mountain ... C'mon

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    437

    Default

    It is very important for riders in Wollongong/Illawarra region to jump on board and have your say in regards to the exclusion of all mountain and downhill trails. We don't want this process setting a policy precedent for the development of trails in Illawarra escarpment or other areas.

    It is baffling that NPWS don't get that trails should be developed based on their environmental impact and satisfying rider experience for the best outcomes of the park.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halo1 View Post
    It is very important for riders in Wollongong/Illawarra region to jump on board and have your say in regards to the exclusion of all mountain and downhill trails. We don't want this process setting a policy precedent for the development of trails in Illawarra escarpment or other areas.

    It is baffling that NPWS don't get that trails should be developed based on their environmental impact and satisfying rider experience for the best outcomes of the park.
    Because part of the management plan takes in the Garawarra State conversation Area at Helensburgh part of the Illawarra area. Check the map. Scroll down to the bottom. There is some good riding in there. Don't want to be riding another packed down clay McFlow trail which is good for a SS.

    http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/re...ing-160363.pdf
    Last edited by bigdamo; 18-07-2017 at 11:46 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    437

    Default

    I was thinking more along the lines of the proposal to develop Trails at MT Keira and the surrounding areas. This will come under a different area plan of management and I fear NPWS will come back with the same BS when this process gets to where the RNP is at now.

    The Dirt Art feasibility study for MT K is underway and NPWS look like they have largely ignored their recommendations for the RNP and those other areas you mention. It would be great to see those trails formally linked up with the Brokers Nose area and beyond to Keira/Kembla. So much potential yet so little vision from NPSW.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halo1 View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of the proposal to develop Trails at MT Keira and the surrounding areas. This will come under a different area plan of management and I fear NPWS will come back with the same BS when this process gets to where the RNP is at now.

    The Dirt Art feasibility study for MT K is underway and NPWS look like they have largely ignored their recommendations for the RNP and those other areas you mention. It would be great to see those trails formally linked up with the Brokers Nose area and beyond to Keira/Kembla. So much potential yet so little vision from NPSW.
    The powers that be if they had some foresight could have a MTB trail from Grays point/Sutherland all the way down to Mt Keira with access from the train in certain areas.

  7. #7
    I'll tells ya! johnny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    on the dunny
    Posts
    11,937

    Default

    Did my bit, pointing out that without at least AM trails me and all my hordes of Canberra mates (hahahaha...., I'm so lonely) won't bother touristing and supporting local businesses. Which is actually true, all except the bit about having mates.
    Respect the Mountain. Ride the Bull. Feel the Flow.

    Successful trades: Nick Z, Rhyno, Naz, RCOH, Parallax, Carlin, Stylinruss, Cave Dweller, Inverted, Teamshore03, Stooge, I-AM-TEH-FASTEST-11, Benana, -Davo, Grover, Drop in Drew, cleeshoy, Bevsta, Daver, hifiandmtb, yogibear, scblack, NoSkidMarks/Crankin. oliosky, dolphinman, binner, iUDEX_nCr, Psimpson7. nickg78

  8. #8
    Senior Member Ultra Lord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Grays Point
    Posts
    918

    Default

    That and bored people will end up building fun trails illegally, which is what has been the case in the RNP for god knows how many years.

    The trails between loftus and grays point are pretty fun, steep and techy. But not what RNP thinks of as sustainable. Atm we get to use them without them getting torn down and blocked off as long as we keep it contained to that area. Kind of a gentlemen's agreement I believe, mind you this is coming second hand from my local bike shop.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knuckles View Post
    I rode Newtown, before it was cool.

  9. #9
    Member mikedh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    57

    Default

    As soon as I read "The network will not be designed to provide opportunities for highly technical riders, all-mountain or downhill riding" I got concerned. The last thing I want to see is more boring family-friendly Celine Dion type trail without a single drop, jump or ladder bridge. I can only speak for myself, but I prefer tight technical over flow trail any day. There is room for everyone's needs.

    I have read the Dirt Art report that this appears to be based on, and while the report points out (several times) the growth of the all-mountain category, none of the trails it proposes have a difficulty rating of black diamond. Adding to this, a clear exclusion of opportunities for highly technical/all-mountain/DH riding is actually offensive to me. I can understand excluding DH trails, there isn't the elevation drop to provide an actual DH experience, but preemptively limiting the area's trail difficulty potential (and thereby limiting future users skill advancement) is not the way forward for a growing sport with such potential.

    A few elements I have pointed out in my response:
    - The kids using beginner trails today will continue to advance in skill. Not providing advanced trails now will re-create the illegal trail problem in the future.
    - Page 25 of the TAR claims that The all-mountain category will continue to grow as will the demand for more challenging, descent focused trails.
    - Page 66 of the TAR states 54% of the 2015 survey participants indicated their skills as intermediate, and 38% indicated their skills as advanced. Excluding advanced trail gives no opportunity for the intermediate to increase their skills at the same time providing nothing for the already advanced.
    - Page 66 of the TAR also states that 47% of the 2015 survey participants claimed they prefer XC, while 44% prefer all-mountain and 3% prefer DH. 44+3=47, which is the same interest in XC. Not designing the trail network for 47% (as stated) is ignoring a very significant amount of participants that will be using the trails.
    - Page 70 of the TAR notes that 2015 survey participants had common themes in additional comments, including concern over "dumbing down" of the trails and making them unnecessarily easier.
    - Stating "opportunities will be explored" in regards to the involvement of the community, volunteers and others in regards to development, management, etc. is a purposefully passive and vague statement. Either the people who are passionate about the trails and will be using them are invited to be involved or they are not.
    -It needs to be clear who is finalizing the decisions and how they are coming to these decisions.
    -It needs to be clear what metrics are being used (ie: subjectivity can really alter trail creation - how are trail features classified?)

    Does the RNP need better MTB trail management? Of course it does, and I can understand the need for a more comprehensive plan. Advanced/technical trail exclusion is something I feel needs to be corrected for the progression of our sport. I hope this acquires more attention before we all end up with every trail becoming a flow trail with no features.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Mr Crudley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Upper Suburbia Heights
    Posts
    1,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikedh View Post
    Does the RNP need better MTB trail management? Of course it does, and I can understand the need for a more comprehensive plan. Advanced/technical trail exclusion is something I feel needs to be corrected for the progression of our sport. I hope this acquires more attention before we all end up with every trail becoming a flow trail with no features.
    The RNP have struggled with this for a long time and you wouldn't think it would be *that* hard. I guess a bit of shire nimbyism's is part of the issue. If they insist on making it a family friendly / insurance appeasing trails then as mentioned new trails will get built and the cycle will continue. I just don't think the RNP have too much to do there and tend to overthink things to the point of little action popping out at the end of 'the process'.

    Atleast the Blue Mountain's National Park has more land play with and having the Oaks ST run parallel and mostly hidden from the main access firetrail has to help and it used pretty heavily.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •