.jpg)
You are hereForums / By Discipline / Mountain (off road) / By Location / Australia / NSW / NSW Trail Advocacy / In the news: Second round of MTB Discussion paper forums
In the news: Second round of MTB Discussion paper forums
Please see Second round of MTB Discussion paper forums in the NoBMoB news section.
Basically, more dates from NPWS forums on the MTB discussion paper.
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
Tags
A lot of conservation groups are now complaining that they weren't consulted in the first round. Not surprising there is a 'backlash' given the sensational media reports. Not sure if they came from a conservation or a confrontation angle, but whatever sells papers is good for them.
Well anyway what had initially seemed 'acceptable' is now being questioned, this means NPWS have to do the rounds and their presentations all over again. At least they should be well versed and be able to answer all questions 'satisfactorily'.
I don't think it would hurt for as many pro-MTBers to be present at the meetings this time round.
My belief is:
The heart of NSW NPWS has an entrenched culture that resists change and has been on a continuing shift from recreation to conservation over the past several decades. In an effort to combat this significantly unbalanced stance DECC has been pretty much told they are off the planet and to shift a bit back towards recreation. What we are seeing is the backlash from change resisters who are fueled by fictional stories written by NPA authors, other scare mongers, anti-re-creationists, people who don't want to share the bush with others, and NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard'ers).
There are some great NSW NPWS (DECC or whatever) employees who are excellent and can accommodate the concept that recreation can be sustainable. They struggle patiently (like many) in waiting for some of these change resisters to hurry up and retire so change can be accelerated.
I disagree, what we are actually seeing is recognition of change. This latest round is purely an exercise in removing any chance of procedural challenge by the extreme green groups when the final results come out.
If DECCW wanted to stop the swing to a more pro mtb stance, the easiest way to do so would gave been to leave a few procedural doors open that the extreme green groups could exploit.
I'm not to concerned by this latest development.
Lenny. Have a look at the post on work to 'Jumping the gun', NPWS are serious about this.
For all the consistency there is between what happens in Sydney North (SFA), and Newcastle (where lots of good stuff has happened)... well... Newcastle might as well be over in New Zealand!
I'm sorry, but NPWS appears to me to be terribly fragmented and what you get is at this stage seems pretty much down to what your local staff want you to get.
Yes and no rob.
In the middle of the POM process, just as we were starting to really make headway there was a NPWS boundary change. Glenrock went from Hunter area to Central Coast. In doing so we lost some people within NPWS who were key to where we were.
There was a lot of hesitation from the new people in charge, but in the end we were able to convince them.
I think what you will find, and the NPWS have said this, is the sydney basin is the most old school in their approach and will likely be the last to change. Not good for you but I firmly beleive wehave gone from chipping away at the edges to tearing away great chunks of resistance. I've had conversations initiated by NPWS about opening other areas as well so change is there.
Glenrock, while maybe the most advanced at this point, isn't the only example and it's only a matter of time before change is forced on the dinosaurs in northern sydney. Easy to say from where I sit, but our seven year process was by no means quick and we started with many of the same walls you have.
Seven years. Wow.
I'm glad this was started awhile back then.
We will wear them down.
GTA history is here http://glenrocktrailalliance.com/node/14840
All started in 2003.
There has been scrutiny of what we do including inspections by the NPA prior to the POM being gazetted do I think we (NSW) are on the right track.
<sarcasm>
Wow... it's lucky then that Sydney isn't where most MTB riders live. Oh wait. by extrapolation from general population figures it is!
So thanks for that encouraging bit of news
</sarcasm>
I think a lot of what is happening here in NSW and the changes we are seeing is driven by what is already happening over there. The NPWS, the Government, Tourism Australia are all seeing people booking flights taking their holidays and spending their money in New Zealand so they can get that high quality MTB and ‘outdoors’experience.
The NPWS are in the business of running National Parks, but skippy doesn’t pay rent, their income comes from people. People who use the parks pay, one way or another.
In the last ten years overall park visitation is down but MTB use and visitation is up, way up and growing.
In any business if you discourage paying customers and they stop coming that’s it you’re out of business.
So that’s the good and bad of it, in order for us to have a future we will have to share with others, and there may be quite a few of them. But as the sport grows we will get more support more access and better facilities. We just need to foster that co-operation and be a part of what NPWS want as much as the parks are what we want.
And so far as the NPA are concerned we just have to show them that conservation and good trail management go hand in hand.
There will always be an impact whenever anyone, any type of user visits, a park. We need to be a “part of the solution not part of the problem”, show them we can help look after the trails and minimise that impact.
On that I think all sides have a bit to learn yet, but we’re going in the right direction.
Just got an email from DECC to inform me that the local meeting, Newcastle Wed.16. Feb, has been cancelled due to lack of interest. It seems Tim H and myself, both MTBer's where the only ones to RSVP.
They have asked if 'd like to do a short 'phone meeting to voice any concerns.
I've replied to them stating that I was more interested in the NPA comments and point of view, so I'll see if they have anything to add to the debate
I received a similar email regarding the cancellation of the Sutherland workshop. The email was addressed to myself and one other person. It also contained the offer of a phone meeting.
Just got home from the springwood meet which consisted of 3 MTBers, 3 Conservationists(one being a rider secondary), 3 NPWS Employees and one Facilitator with a background in Bushwalking, Mountain Biking and Conservation.
The night was spent around one table outlining our key concerns which basically ended up being a disscussion on how we can make conservation in our parks work with new recreations coming in.
Well thats may just be may thoughts,
But I think we achieved something
Nice. Sorry i couldn't make it but duty was a callin'.
What no Nichols Pde people? lol I thought as much, their far reaching concern for the environment is obviously limited to their letter box, inboz and council chambers , more bonafides for BMORC
After reading martins notes from the meeting last night, there isn't too much raised that gives me cause for concern. As for conservation issues, it doesn't look like many were raised.
I do think that the fact a stink was caused to have these meetings and the turnouts have been low is a good thing for us. Will be interesting to see how the next ones transpire.
Thanks for going all. Martins notes sounded very positive and it seemed like it was a good stepping stone for a better relationship between us and the conservation groups.
I was intending on going but after being accused of being aggressive over some of my forum posts thought I'd stay at home in case my attendance was somehow seen as being intimidating.
Good to see a calm and positive meeting took place
I think what became obvious in a non-heated discussion with fundamental differences of opinion and backgrounds is that all parties don't just want to put trails into parks where they shouldn't be and that conservation is a primary issue. The difference on opinion relates to how they can be put in where it still meets that criteria or where there is an inconsistancy.
I think from this smaller meeting people came away with better knowledge of what the various other parties had to say and why they held their points of view. The NPWS guys gave some interesting perspectives while the conservationist attendees were able to state their misgivings and the mtbers were I think able to maybe refute a few and be able to take some on board.
I think we discussed a few of the real issues that either do exist or need further assment rather than wasting time on fueding over preconceptions. So to have such a heated issue discussed in such a cordial way was quite satisfying.
Coffs Harbour meeting is now off.
Only one registration and it was a mountainbike rider.
@sammydog by Coffs do you mean Port Macquarie? I don't see a Coffs date on the list is all.
My mistake, Port Mac it is.
Jindabyne is now off as only one person (a mtb rep) expressed an interest.
So that is Newcaslte, Port Macquarie, Jindabyne and Sutherland cancelled as only mtb people expressed an interest.
Springwood is done as noted in earlier posts.
That leaves,
- nowra
- turramurra
I'm guessing they will be the fun ones, but the NPA and Colong groups are isolated with small support.
Round 1 at Turramurra was fairly sedated, except for some bearded nut-job trying to make a long statement sound like a question. Everybody (including DECC) was like "What was the question?"... oh and me refuting some other bearded types (a couple) who were making comments about MTB'ers. We were all told clearly at the start of the night not to make comments about other user groups. They used the safety angle, the conservation angle, and were basically asked by the DECC facilitators to get some perspective.
As a bush carer and cyclist, who is studying environmental systems management, I'm looking forward to it.
They also have James Squire on tap from memory.
I've been in touch with Narelle King, who is the NPWS 'Experience Development Coordinator'. She has been a part of the Cycling Policy Review process and the public Consultation meetings.
I met when Narelle and other NPWS staff were attended the IMBA Trail Sustainability Forum as pat of their research for the review.
She had this to say about the 'Second Round' of workshops and was happy for me to post it on the website;
That's very encouraging ... the fact that they will not be throwing out the previous information and comments which were gathered in the original discussions!
If they had thrown out the old comments there wouldn't have been much to work with.
At our meeting at Sprinwood the other night it was just a workshop with a few pages of discussion, quite a few of the topics raised but very little gone into depth.