Hagar
13-08-2004, 09:34 AM
Hi All
Particularly the forum moderators.
On the 20 th of August submissions for comment on the Kosciuszko MGT Plan close.
I think It would be a brilliant idea if Farkin as a body could submit comment on this plan. For those who havent read it, the plan will allow NPWS to almost completely ban off road cycling in the snowy mountains region. (If they want) This includes the ban of cycling on management trails, i.e. fire roads. I am unsure how it will effect the DH track and chair lift access.
Farkin as a community has a lot of members and therefore could be seen as a representative voice for mountain bikers. 4763 members is an impressive figure.
Below is a comment written by a forum member (Chips) on the 26 inches website.
Submission on the draft Kosciusko Plan of Management
Part B, Chapter 8 "Recreation", Section 8.8 Cycling
Section on "Background"
This section fails to identify different modalities of cycling (e.g. road riding, cross country touring, downhill, freeride and so on) that might be carried out in the NP. It appears that the authors of the plan do not understand the different recreational uses of bicycles, and as a consequence some but not all modalities are catered for in the plan. This lack of differentiation between disciplines will encourage the formation of informal and illegal tracks in order to meet the demands of the cycling community. It is always better to understand the needs of recreational users, and cater for them in a properly managed and controlled manner. Management is an important task, and banning of certain recreational activites while expedient is not good management practice and will create more harm than good.
Section on "Issues and Opportunities"
Erosion. The discussion of erosion is incomplete, out of date and wrong. It is now well understood and proven by research that the erosion caused by cycling is the least of all recreational activities including walking, except where gradients exceed 20 degrees. The current PoM treatment of erosion therefore has limited credibility. Cutting corners can be discouraged by education / signing and prevented by the erection of subtle barriers such as sleepers secured using stakes. Erosion where gradients are extreme can be avoided by requiring cyclists to dismount.
Conflict. Although I walk and ride at least 50km per week in NP I never experience conflict. It is avoided by walking and riding with a proper level of care and respect for traffic rules. Conflict can be managed by signing and education, and by limiting user density such as by providing alternate paths in high traffic locations. Conflict will only be encouraged by demoting certain user groups or banning them completely. Separate trail networks are certainly a solution but in reality conflict is only caused by a vocal few. In twelve years of cycling in National Parks I have never had a conflict with any one, whether on the bike or off it.
Cycling on Management Trails. The current management policy of allowing cycling on management trails in wilderness is correct. While management trails exist in wilderness areas the trail itself is man-made and is therefore by definition not wild. The fact that ACT and Victoria have got this wrong is not a reason to exclude cyclists from adjoining trails in NSW- two wrongs do not make a right and instead NSW NPWS should be encouraging ACT and Victorian managers to correct their mistake.
Subsection 8.8.1
Per the above point cycling should not be banned from any management trails, except temporarily when special weather and surface conditions such as snow /slush increase erosion potential. In summary if it is OK for an NPWS vehicle then it is OK for cycling, and the bans proposed in this subsection are inappropriate and superfluous.
Rather than banning cycling in high use areas it makes more sense to request by signing that cyclists dismount and walk with or carry their cycles. Giveway requirements may also be signed. Banning more or less automatically means some level of non-compliance, and encourages riding fast through an area in order to avoid being caught.
It is important to ensure the text of the plan differentiates between "walking track" which is a management designation of the purpose of a track and "track" which describes a physical feature of the environment which may easily be negotiated by cyclists. "Walking track" designation should be reserved for tracks which are unsuitable for riding on account of steepness, ladders and so on.
Subsection 8.8.1 point 11
Booking- this is an excellent way to handle peak period demand, and has the potential to significantly reduce the possibility of user conflict. When booking is required a booking should be a requirement for ALL users. It is not OK to discriminate against a particular class of recreational user, this will create hostility and non-compliance. If booking is used as away to manage recreational traffic then equal spots should be assigned to user all user groups.
Subsection 8.8.1 point 4
Track regeneration from motor vehicle size to singletrack. Bicycles do not require more than a foot or two of track width, so when a management road reduces in width due to growth it remains a proper route for cyclists. Consequently cycling must continue to be allowed on the Charlotte Pass - Rawson Pass route indefinately.
Particularly the forum moderators.
On the 20 th of August submissions for comment on the Kosciuszko MGT Plan close.
I think It would be a brilliant idea if Farkin as a body could submit comment on this plan. For those who havent read it, the plan will allow NPWS to almost completely ban off road cycling in the snowy mountains region. (If they want) This includes the ban of cycling on management trails, i.e. fire roads. I am unsure how it will effect the DH track and chair lift access.
Farkin as a community has a lot of members and therefore could be seen as a representative voice for mountain bikers. 4763 members is an impressive figure.
Below is a comment written by a forum member (Chips) on the 26 inches website.
Submission on the draft Kosciusko Plan of Management
Part B, Chapter 8 "Recreation", Section 8.8 Cycling
Section on "Background"
This section fails to identify different modalities of cycling (e.g. road riding, cross country touring, downhill, freeride and so on) that might be carried out in the NP. It appears that the authors of the plan do not understand the different recreational uses of bicycles, and as a consequence some but not all modalities are catered for in the plan. This lack of differentiation between disciplines will encourage the formation of informal and illegal tracks in order to meet the demands of the cycling community. It is always better to understand the needs of recreational users, and cater for them in a properly managed and controlled manner. Management is an important task, and banning of certain recreational activites while expedient is not good management practice and will create more harm than good.
Section on "Issues and Opportunities"
Erosion. The discussion of erosion is incomplete, out of date and wrong. It is now well understood and proven by research that the erosion caused by cycling is the least of all recreational activities including walking, except where gradients exceed 20 degrees. The current PoM treatment of erosion therefore has limited credibility. Cutting corners can be discouraged by education / signing and prevented by the erection of subtle barriers such as sleepers secured using stakes. Erosion where gradients are extreme can be avoided by requiring cyclists to dismount.
Conflict. Although I walk and ride at least 50km per week in NP I never experience conflict. It is avoided by walking and riding with a proper level of care and respect for traffic rules. Conflict can be managed by signing and education, and by limiting user density such as by providing alternate paths in high traffic locations. Conflict will only be encouraged by demoting certain user groups or banning them completely. Separate trail networks are certainly a solution but in reality conflict is only caused by a vocal few. In twelve years of cycling in National Parks I have never had a conflict with any one, whether on the bike or off it.
Cycling on Management Trails. The current management policy of allowing cycling on management trails in wilderness is correct. While management trails exist in wilderness areas the trail itself is man-made and is therefore by definition not wild. The fact that ACT and Victoria have got this wrong is not a reason to exclude cyclists from adjoining trails in NSW- two wrongs do not make a right and instead NSW NPWS should be encouraging ACT and Victorian managers to correct their mistake.
Subsection 8.8.1
Per the above point cycling should not be banned from any management trails, except temporarily when special weather and surface conditions such as snow /slush increase erosion potential. In summary if it is OK for an NPWS vehicle then it is OK for cycling, and the bans proposed in this subsection are inappropriate and superfluous.
Rather than banning cycling in high use areas it makes more sense to request by signing that cyclists dismount and walk with or carry their cycles. Giveway requirements may also be signed. Banning more or less automatically means some level of non-compliance, and encourages riding fast through an area in order to avoid being caught.
It is important to ensure the text of the plan differentiates between "walking track" which is a management designation of the purpose of a track and "track" which describes a physical feature of the environment which may easily be negotiated by cyclists. "Walking track" designation should be reserved for tracks which are unsuitable for riding on account of steepness, ladders and so on.
Subsection 8.8.1 point 11
Booking- this is an excellent way to handle peak period demand, and has the potential to significantly reduce the possibility of user conflict. When booking is required a booking should be a requirement for ALL users. It is not OK to discriminate against a particular class of recreational user, this will create hostility and non-compliance. If booking is used as away to manage recreational traffic then equal spots should be assigned to user all user groups.
Subsection 8.8.1 point 4
Track regeneration from motor vehicle size to singletrack. Bicycles do not require more than a foot or two of track width, so when a management road reduces in width due to growth it remains a proper route for cyclists. Consequently cycling must continue to be allowed on the Charlotte Pass - Rawson Pass route indefinately.