You are hereForums / By Discipline / Mountain (off road) / By Location / Australia / NSW / Northern Beaches / Northern Beaches Trail Advocacy / Manly Daily 17/10/09 - Check out Pages 32/33
Manly Daily 17/10/09 - Check out Pages 32/33
http://digitaledition.manlydaily.com.au/
Anyone have a link to the online version? The above holds a copy of what appeared in print. There was a 2 page for/against MTB an on the whole think it's positive for riders. 
The gem in this is:
But NPWS executive director of park management Bob Conroy agrees that mountain bike riders do have a place in national parks and has made it clear he does not want to lock them out.
He is not inherently opposed to legally and properly constructed single tracks...
"There is a place for mountain bikes in national parks and we are willing to look at that. I can see the benefits of mountain biking in national parks and we are keen to consult with all the user groups," Conroy said.
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
I did think it was a little strange that in the "for" it was mentioned that people get motorbike ruts confused with mountain bikes causing them and then in the "against" it had pictures of ruts obviously caused by motorbikes
.
... that those ruts were caused by motorbikes.
The obvious motorbike tread pattern is a separate photo - unrelated to the other two shots, which I have seen before as being attributed to downhillers. Not saying they categorically are caused by mtbers, just to be careful to be sure - lest we end up being proved wrong and losing the factual high ground.
What we can be certain of is that the damage is directly caused by poor drainage due mostly to trail route and location.
The left hand photo in the printed edition is of a trail pointing straight down-slope through clay soils - a certain recipe for the kind of damage it illustrates. The second is of the bottom of a steep slope where the trail runs turns and runs onto flat, again through clay soils. It is a location guaranteed to result in persistent wetness, mud - and consequently, that exact type of trail erosion. It's not rocket science: I learned about the issue in Geography in relation to erosion and farm ploughing practice in junior high school in the mid-70s, so it's hardly new information.
As part of our advocacy we need to push to have those trails closed. They need to be re-routed to zig-zag back and forth across the face of the slope, and we need to ensure they are built to IMBA standards to guarantee sustainability and resistance to erosion.
Overall, I thought it was a balanced pair of articles.
Around 90% of the trenches are caused by motor bikes, with say 5% bikers, 5% walkers.
The trails in the right hand pictures are not overly steep, and the erosion is most certainly caused by motorbikers. How can i be so sure? Becuase i have spent a lot of time on the exact trail in the picture in Garigal and red hill and have witnessed both being consistently ripped up by motorbikes.
For a mental picture imagine it has rained all weekend, then a motorbike rides up the trail seeking fun(fair enough) whats not fair enough is that the clay is so soft after a couple days of rain that even the exhaust from a motorbike would cause erosion.
But when they rip up the trail at full noise it digs deep 3 inch by 3 inch trenches out of the trail x that by ten years and add the fact that there has been zero sustainability maintenance and you get whats in the right hand picture.
Also in the picture you can see the perfectly formed trench the same width the whole way up, we see this all the time at red hill and garigal, it is caused by the rear frame of the motorbike being wedged into the trench while the tires try to drag the motorbike up the trail. Yes, it may be fun, but as you can see in the pictures it does a whole load of damage and at the same time misleads the public by them mistaking the damage as being cuased by mountain bikers!
Once again im not just making up this to post, i have seen it many times with my own eyes on that exact section.
If you want to see it live go up to red hill on any given weekend(especially in the wet )to see it happening in front of your own eyes, it still happening up there all the time exactly as pictured.
So from what i can see the only real argument the greenies have against us is fataly flawed. And as Rob stated it looks like National Parks are on our side so its all good.
We just have to make sure they dont get swayed to the (fanatical) green side:)
the photo on the right was part of the oxford falls cross country track?
I believe a massive amount of the erosion is caused by water damage - (if you must use red hill as an example which I prefer not to as it has nothing what so ever to do with the NPWS) when you go down from the Beacon Hill side to get over to the rock carvings, most of the erosion on that track was caused by 'grading' which meant dumping fill on the track, no research or planning or proper preparation, which means the water flows as it was and then creates the ruts which are then in turn magnified by use of both mtb and trail bike riders...
From my above post
When I or anybody else sites red hill as an example of erosion we are not so much talking about the main 4x4 trail or the graded section (even though these get chewed up as well), rather the vast network of informal single trail especially toward the sport and rec end.
You are right though the main 4x4 trail suffers severely from water drainage issues also.
We use Red Hill as an example as it is frequented by motorbike riders every day and when you find these informal single trails (not on Nobmob map) and look at the damage, it is all to evident that the damage is caused my Motos climbing them especially in the wet, but also in the dry.
Even though there are dedicated MTB trail fairies maintaining some of these informal trails, they continually fight a losing battle, due to the thoughtless damage done when they are not around.
Just for the record Motos regularly cross Wakehurst Parkway in 2 main spots that im aware of, both to motor bike ride the single trail inside and outside Garigal NP. Once again i spend a lot of time around the above trails and have witnessed the damage personally.
One group of Moto riders we met on the "Road To Somewhere" one day said, “hey do you guys know how to get back to Red Hill from here? We’ve been riding around in circles for hours".
p.s once again im not anti Motorbikers, providing they are responsible.
Like Rob has said, we have never been given official permission to care any the single trails on the Northern Beaches. So even if there was there was no way to prove Motorbikers caused most of the erosion on local single trail(which there is anyway), and they blamed it all on us, it doesn’t matter any way as we have never been given the chance to:
1. Redesign the informal and formal single trails in question for mountain bike use to sustainable IMBA standards
2. Maintain the said trails
3. Restrict motor bikes access to said trails
Do we see "erosion trenches" or the like at manly dam or any of the single trail around the dam?, i think not, why? becuase the trails are built sustainably, maintained and are restricted to motorbikers.
with most of your comments, but since Red Hill is a legal place for registered motorbike riders to go it seems silly to bring it up all the time in this type of discussion - I find it apalling that the motorbike riders are at manly dam as that is just plain dangerous and, yes of course I agree that trials need to be created and maintained properly in the first place, but leave red hill out of it- that place is a 'playground' for everyone and needs to be shared or we will end up losing that as well... and there are a lot less motorbikes up there (thank goodness) than mtb - and yes, i know this for a fact too as i am also there once if not twice a day with my various sports
must add though that I have been 'mentioning' to the boys unloading their bikes that the police are plannig to patrol the area as the residents have complained about noise...
If it's legal for motorbikes to ride in the Red Hill area then why have the police been busting them? Just unregistered ones?
This is fantastic because NPWS has officially stated their reservations and they are all issues that are readily managed in National Parks.
With regard to Bob Conroy's four key issues the short respose would be:
1. Potential conflicts and suitability for national parks - refer to SA:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,2459...
2. Safety and liability - refer to:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,23957539-1702,00...
3. Cost of maintenance:
Maintaining a trail network with volunteer/club input has been demonstrated in Canberra (CORC)
4. Enviromental Damage:
Already discussed at length by others. The three key causes of percieved high impact are a)confusion with motorbikes, b) water runoff due to poor track design and c) very high concentration of usage on very few formally recognised trails.
The longer response is contained in the most authoritative Australian analysis of the impacts of mountain biking and effective management strategies carried out for John Forrest NP in WA. The study was conducted by the Federal Governement Funded Sustainable Tourism Co-operative Research Centre with significant input from the WA Department of Environment and Conservation and park rangers.
The sustainable tourism CRC comprises partnerships with 15 Australian Universities, Local Councils, state National Park authorities (including NSW NPWS, Parks Victoria and WA DEC) and state tourism bodies, consequently thier assessment is pretty well balanced. Notably it doesn't include any user group partners (and so the conclusions remain free of the bias that could be inferred into our (or IMBA) assessments). Nonetheless the story is the same as ours.
The study can be found here:
http://www.crctourism.com.au/WMS/Upload/Resource...
Also note it's statements regarding fire trails:
p. 18
This is likely to affect the percieved high cost of trail maintenance (e.g. manly dam where most of the maintenace budget goes into putting soil on the steep sections of fire trail every couple years so that it can get washed into the creek and ultimately fill up the dam with dirt instead of water):
It is very interesting that everything on the against side from Johnathan O'Dea and Bob Conroy is exactly in line with what we have proposed: i.e.
1. XC and trail riding is appropriate for national parks.
2. freeride, dirt jump and downhill trails with jumps, structures etc. is probably better suited to council land, crown land or regional parks (regional parks are also administered by NPWS)
The consideration of freeride & downhill activities in regional parks, crown and council land is critical in Sydney where the bushland is overwhelmingly under NPWS control or council/crown land joined to a NP. Council/Crown Land adjoining a NPWS park is typically maintained consistently with the NPWS PoM. Therefore whatever NPWS deem appropriate for a National/Regional Park is almost always mirrored in the council and crown land PoM's. The result is that the use of all NP's, RP's, crown and council administered bushland is effectively under NPWS policy control.
Our proposed approach is entirely consistent with Jonathon O'Dea's statement when he says that that the WSN tip (or hornsby quarry for that manner) would be an ideal location for a mtb facility in Sydney's north. This would provide a simple, politically palatable solution for the jumping disciplines, DH course and FR areas outside of more sensitive buhsland areas. Unfortunately this has been promised for years and recent developments demonstrate that it is not going to happen any time soon. At best this is a 5-10 year solution to offset the loss of Red Hill and Oxford Falls trails to development that is currently being, or has already been, approved by council/state govt.
It is also relevant that DH has been occuring at Thredbo for over a decade and this demonstrates that Downhill is not automatically incompatible with NP's.
What everyone agrees on is:
a) that there is a whole spectrum of activities covered by 'Mountain Biking'
b) mountain biking impacts can be managed for all disciplines
c) many mountain biking activities are clearly approporiate in National Parks (e.g. XC/trail)
d) facilities need to be provided outside NP's for the other mountain biking activities that require man made construction that is clearly incompatible with NP's
If we can adress these issues rather than pushing individual interests we will have fantastic mountain biking management framework that can meet NSW's recreational MTB needs for generations to come.
Given the existing high popularity of the sport in the face of severly restricted trail access, a good strategy should also reduce the need for continued investment in traditional clear felled, high maintenance, high water use, high cost, single use grassy open spaces that need huge funding subsidies to maintain (such as golf courses and sportfields) and benefit comparatively few.
If not we'll argue about whether hikers/horse riders/motorbikes or mountain bikes move more dirt, agree on a small scale 'pilot', prove that there is a measurable impact if you put every mountain biker in Sydney on a little bit of track, and then continue the bun fight over how to manage the impact for another ten years without doing anything about it.
Thankfully it appears that the governement is looking for a real solution.
Yeah apparently as its for the most part Crown Land, its legal if your registered.I guess that goes for motos and 4x4's.
Red hill had to be used as an example as it is interlinked with this issue, they ride around red hill, then cross over the road to garigal the damge is evident at both areas. It a tuff one, as i would love for the motorbike riders to have open slather at red hill providing they didnt ruin the single trail,becuase, where else are they going to go?. But because of the facts that the damage there is mainly caused by motos, it's giving MTBers a bad name, and its now even getting to the mainstream press, something has to be done.
The reason i am putting a bit of effort into this issue, is because it will most certainly be brought up at the up and comming mtb/npws/lobby groups meeting. We have to have our facts straight and solutions in place.
Very good points especially the last sentence. Although point (d) may need to be tweaked, after thinking about it especially since the manly daily article and the wording that NPWS used, i do believe the only major dicipline that is not really suited to NPs is freeride.This is because of its high risk nature and it not fitting in visually. Downhill on the other hand can be built sustainably and with a minimum of structure.As you can see in the video below(trail designed by world trail)Ive posted this up before but it is a great example.
Using a little bit of logic.Is XC suitable in national parks?, "Of course", you say!
Well when you look at stromlo as a perfect case study of an xc track it has a big uphill, a big downhill and flat sections.So if anyone is to say "downhill is not suitable in national parks", then they must also say xc is not suitable.
We know this not to be the case, so are we missing something?
In effect a DH trail is just one third of a XC trail,so if you accept XC is acceptable in National parks you inturn have to accept DH is also acceptable.
Another example: Manly dam, around about one third downhill. Some chose just to shuttle the downhill section, some choose to ride the entire trail.Both diciplines on the same trail.
Overseas in the alps,XC trails gradualy climb thousands of meters and gradualy decend thousands of meters, this is true XC.
http://youtu.be/lzpkUlEL_wY
Trails like these do have a place in national park and can be built sustainably.As allready stated look at thredbo, it been around forever, and it has a chairlift.
Im not saying put a chairlift in every National Park though, as good as that would be.
On the subject of chairlifts, if they are put into any national park in the future they have multiple uses.
*hiker lift
*Biker lift
*lift ride itself (view)
*lift to a lookout
*lift to a commercial operation which may include a cafe/resturuant
*lift to a accomodation
All of the above are tourist attractions and draw people from all over.Sum up,Chairlifts are good.Anyway back to subject.
We have to be carefull so as not to sell ourselves short of what has already been achieved in mountain biking trail advocacy all over the world.
For example, man made structures.There is very little diference when it comes to legitimite northshore structure and walking boardwalks in national parks.
Canada has been through all of this allready. Northshore boardwalks where originally designed to raise the mountain bikers up off the sensitive vegitation below, so the trail could continue with out causing any environmental issues.
National Park walking boardwalk.
http://youtu.be/NBibokTnw8Q
Mountain biking "boardride"
http://youtu.be/vMQj-hZtC3E
For mountain bikes we only need around a metre wide max over highly sensitive area's and no rails,except where needed.
We deserve the same infrastructure as walkers have got over the years, we are a legitmate sustainable park user, that can generate a lot of money for NPWS.We have been conditioned into thinking that mountain bike trails dont deserve the same treatment and dollars as walking trails, but we do deserve well designed trails with infrastruce if needed as there is a demand, and im sure in alot of parks mountain bikers outdo walkers in sheer numbers.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Ben. However, having worked hard to gain acceptance of the different disciplines it is important that we don't then try to roll them all back into the same thing.
NPWS have identified that there is no significant issue with XC/trail riding. No arguments there - Let them get on with making the required policy changes.
NPWS do have concerns regarding disciplines where there are other impacts that they don't fully understand. These relate principally to the question of whether jumps and boardwalks are appropriate in NP's. This is really what the discussion is all about.
As someone who wears a full facer, I couldn't say with a straight face that DH tracks are really just the down sections of XC tracks. Having riden the dam on my Glory I can say that no part of it is in any way a downhill track. Having riden the Stromlo DH course and most of Awaba clipped in on my Reign, with a xc helmet and no armour, I can say that these are definitely not 'just the downhill bit of XC courses'. DH is different and needs to be considered separately, if only because you need a shuttle road, trailer turning areas and trail sharing arrangements need to be more carefully considered.
Free riding in Australia is not all about riding off trail (as suggested in the article), but about riding technical features (drops, gaps, step-ups, step-downs etc) that would be out of place on a DH (race) course. These can be man made or natural. If they are natural and the trail is well designed, FR and DH trails could be compatible with national parks (e.g. thredbo). If boardwalks can be put in (e.g. the elevated walkway from Crackenback to Kosciusko) to manage impacts then this could be considered where the usage justifies it.
Free ride is really no different to downhill in terms of risk, one is more about speed the more other is about skills. Neither is particularly risky in comparison to other sports (whistler bike park injuries v ski injuries).
NPWS have indicated that they may consider allowing these activities in regional parks (e.g. Berowra Valley), or they should be provided on crown and council land. In many cases these are probably, but not exclusively, where they are most suited.
The discussion with NPWS should focus on defining what is appropriate and what is not appropriate in both National Parks and Regional Parks. Where concerns cannot be resolved because the impacts are demonstrably too high, appropriate facilities need to be provided on crown or council land if NPWS wish to avoid 'secret' FR & DH trails popping up. Once NPWS position is clear, it is easy to identify what additional facilities (such as Dirt Jump parks) are required on crown and council land.
Cheers.
Agreed, the disciplines must not become one, but my point is..
That "actual" downhill riding is included in most "proper" XC trails, whether it be hardcore dh or not, its still downhill:)
It’s the non hardcore downhill that is suited to National Parks, as per the vid i posted in my last post. Not Stromlo style.
If there is Safe, Sweeping, gradually descending sustainable downhill single trail, then i cannot foresee NPWS having an issue with it at all.
I feel there difference needs to be pointed out between Freeride and old school (real) genuine long downhill winding trails.
Freeride is usually “bigger is better”, bigger gaps, knarlier stunts, bigger hucks, massive kickers and even bigger landers, massive cliff drops, skinny Northshore, and so on. It is certainly not a new discipline but it certainly has an emphasis on fun and all things extreme!
Downhill is generally 3-5km (preferably 10km) long minimum of of tight or open winding natural single trail with usually safe enough stunts that can be taken at slow speed levels and also very fast speed levels.Most of the time table tops or drops are used as they can be rolled or popped of by novices. These trails will generally have A and B lines for growing skill levels.
I agree certain aspects of Freeride could be added to the downhill trails later on, down the track:)but the fact that they mentioned Freeride as not being suitable in the article and facilities already existing (although not official) i don’t like the chances of getting it from the get go.
On the northern beaches these too disciplines, Free Ride and Downhill have been warped a little with Oxford falls IMO being the reason, a lot of people view oxford falls/lizard rock as a downhill destination, but its not, most of the riders there and some of the builders call it a Freeride park.
Back in the day it was true downhill and downhill races where even held there. Yes, certainly you can put together a dh run in there if you get creative, but all in all, its been designed of late to be a Freeride park.(No disrespect intended, its a great place)
So when the environmentalists or NPWS hear the word "Downhill" on the northern beaches, im sure they like most of us envision oxford falls or the other Freeride X downhill trails around. All it takes is a little education about real downhill tracks and what they are about and how they can be built and maintained sustainably and im sure like so many other land managers around Australia and around the world they will not have a problem with implementing the policies needed to get things happening, its all written down for us at IMBA.
With the boardwalks for bikes, as i said in my other post, its been done for walkers where there is a need to reduce environmental impact, there is no reason why it cant be done for bikers to IMBA standards. So all that needs to happen is equality, we need to be viewed on equal terms with walkers or of the same importance as walkers, we are the growing user group and a major future income source for parks so i can see this happening fairly soon.
I hear they have proper DH and DJ's in Glenrock now too?
Am i right in saying Parks VIC have accepted dh and implemented?
PS. I too am a fellow Fullface rider if you hadn't allready guessed:)
No, we don't have DH in Glenrock. We are pushing for it, but at this point it is a step too far for NPWS and I am not to sure that I don't disagree with them. We have two areas of formal DJ's though that have recently been rebuilt by World Trail and a third area slated for a pump track and further DJ's when we work out how to sort the drainage.
Beginners DJ's. Two lines, one side of the jumps is big rollers, the other has defined lips and small hollows.
Intermediate DJ's. There is a set of 6 jumps here getting bigger down the set.
Ben, I am not sure I can share your thoughts that a DH trail and XC trail are the same based on the fact they are both descending. I can guarentee you that a general descending XC trail is not going to keep the DH crew happy for long. The following photos come from a build day at glenrock where we essentially closed most of a trail and re-routed it. This is a classic semi-technical descending trail on an XC bike, but it would not be overly exciting on a DH bike.
This section of trail (photos at the end of the post) is longer than any of the DH trails in Glenrock, not only in distance but also elevation drop, yet it is not attractive to the DH guys. What the DH crew want (and I count myself in there) is not really compatible with NP's. The main reason I keep pushing for some DH trail up here is because of the potential impact to the park if they are suddenly closed. Any park in the urban environment has more pressures and they need to be managed. In the case of DH, the issue for us is for the young crew there is no alternative to Glenrock. If they are shut out, how do you stop them rebuilding? In this instance a DH trail in a NP may be appropriate as it will mitigate against illegal construction in the future.
That said, what we need to be focusing on at this point is getting designated trails that are designed properly with maintenance regimes built in. As we all know, any trail for any use will get ugly pretty quick if it isn't designed for its intended purpose. Maybe with properly maintained and built XC, we can in the future make the leap to DH? We actually have another build day in glenrock this weekend to close a fire road climb that washed out and replace it with about twice the distance of single trail. NPWS know that this is the better solution for the park which is why they are getting us and the machinery in to get busy. They have also raised the issue about marking trails as mtb only as they have seen evidence of walkers cutting corners.
Those trails look so good even if they are just gradual descending or whatever (very nice), i can see where you are coming from with the dh 100%, trust me i think the same way, but do you think a middle ground has to be found between hardcore and sustainability when dealing with national park dh courses. Do you think the Garapine trail is a good example or a little tame?, it certainly is a lot better than what we dont have officially here at the moment.
We are in the same boat here with access to land also, probably around 95% National Park with very few other viable options other than an old tip in a few years and a moto playground. The national park also has one of the highest elevation over 200meters in places
It also amazes me you have got djs in the park, good work!
I would honestly like to think that a tame DH trail would suffice as apposed to getting nothing, but I think the reality is that it won't.
It wouldn't take long before the trail was modified to resemble something a little more technical, or complete new lines are opened up, which would reflect on the sport as a whole. We don't need to give groups like the NPA extra ammo.
You only need to look at the rate of change of the existing DH trails in Glenrock. People aren't happy for a DH trail to remain constant. Tweaks are always being made and that also is part of what makes the land managers nervous about them. And thats not getting into sustainability and user conflict.
Wow, that seems a bit imaginative coming from the NPWS.
Awesome work sammydog that you have the cred for them to be suggesting that to you. Well done.
The biggest thing I think we achieved was to gain the respect of the NPWS. This didn't happen over night, the process started 6 years ago and now we are seeing the benefits. In gaining respect though we showed a lot as well and were pretty open about any flaws we as a mtb community had. This actually opened the door to a lot of two way education and I think it has been to the benefit of of both the park and the riders.
We aren't happy about some of the trails and sections of park we will not be able to access in the future, but what we have will be great. The ability to maintain it is almost mind-boggling from where we came and the hope is always there to keep pushing to reopen some of the trails lost.
The NPWS is changing with time, we just need to be patient and keep trying to gain (and show) respect. It will come.
We will do our best to match your efforts up here.
We need to all work together and network to make this work in Northern national parks and regional parks for the benifit of Mountain biking in parks all over Australia, good work!
DH inside You Yangs National Park I believe
http://youtu.be/J9s1od6V6rQ
Any other National Parks with official DH in Australia?
if some idiot had a real go at Warragamba, we'd be back 60+ years for drinking water, Manly, Woodford, Prospect
so I can see why they'd like to keep it to a minimum for impact on the erosional side.
Northshore boards are great, but can't really say they keep you off the vegetation, more like you kill the vegetation to put in the boardwalk above it, more the erosion again with trail damage.
riding boards can be fun if they stay clean. can the entire board area be treated with stick on plastic for grip ?
in the wet, much not fun, slippy muchly, especially if slightly mossy.
would need, perhaps, even more self policing by us of others for everyone, to stay out in the wet.
30kmh on a corner in the wet = face plant to the side of the head and injury. mucho oucho
(it's 6am, i don't write coherently when it's bed time)
Yeah they can be successful if built right, in fact land managers have used boardwalks for years to raise the walker up and off the native vegetation/wildlife(ferns wildlife and shrubs can still flourish post construction beneath). It works for walkers and it has been proven to work for bikers on the "traditional" North Shore in Canada.
As far a slip risk is concerned, as long as the correct wood is used and chicken mesh is implemented on slippery areas such as corners, ascending and descending. "North shore" boardwalk structures can be used to great success.