Bushwalk Australia

Hi
I have just spent much of this week at the tracks and trails conference http://www.tracksandtrails.org.au/
It is mostly land managers managers from different Government departments and Councils around Australia/NZ. There was a bunch of high level policy stuff and a bit of practical info on track building/management etc.

There where about 150 people at the conference. There a huge focus on mountain biking and access for mountain biking. Now I don't want to start up a MTB bashing thread, I think there is a a place for MTB, in fact I love riding myself.

One interesting thing I noticed is that people who enjoy bushwalking where hugelllly under-represented, and under-represented in the research by many of the land managers.

Although there where a couple of very vocal walkers, it was clear that MTB, horse riders and dirt bike riders are much more organised and politically savy. These groups are speaking in one very clear and well articulated voice to policy makers, and having a significant impact. I am not so greatly concerned about the impact they are having, but I am concerned that the walkers are just not part of this conversation and run the risk of losing significant ground.

Tassy was one great exception to this 'rule'. It seemed that the land managers in tassy are very aware of the need for walkers. Walkers needs seemed high on the agenda in Tassy.
Some states where more interested in talking about 'yoga' experiences in the bush, then talking about walking.

Now I don't want to paint a picture that walking is under an huge immediate threat. But the focus for track and trail use is shifting, and I think that walkers need to be part of that discussion.

I guess I just wanted to start a conversation about what we might be able to do, to start raising the awareness of walkers, the value of walking, and the need of walkers.
BTW I am not just thinking about us "bushwalkers" I am also thinking about the many more people who do the 1 hr strolls through the bush on weekends.

I am looking at inviting my local member on a short walk to help him see the value of such experiences. I am sure that you guys will have many other better ideas.

Matt

I am under the impression that it would be very dangerous, if walkers have to share with trail bike riders and mountain bike riders. A fatality highly possible, and not to mention the damage done to the tracks, particularly by trail bike riders.

Keep them away from us, I say.

Matt, From what I can see in that link that whole conference was organised and run by MTB/cycling groups for their own interests. Probably not a surprise that walking didn't feature. I'd never heard of that organisation before. Were any walking groups such as NPA involved? Nothing against MTBs either, it's an activity I've also taken up myself in the last couple of years and I really enjoy it too. For me it's much like a bushwalk on wheels. For many others they're looking for some sort of adrenalin rush, seeking new technical single track and downhill facilities. I don't have a problem with that if done in appropriate locations (eg not in wilderness areas) and tracks built to proper standards to prevent erosion etc. I wouldn't want to see a proliferation of them in national parks, but excluding MTBs altogether is likely to see further illegal trails being made.

I have a different view on (motorised) trail bikes. They're illegal and a menace in most, if not all, NPWS (NSW) and council managed natural areas, unless registered and using public roads only. Police, rangers etc seem to have their hands full dealing with them. Registered bikes with licensed riders already have lawful access for recreation in state forests in NSW (possibly other states also).

Ah yes, the "yoga experience in the bush". Not the yoga itself, that's fine of course, people are welcome to practise yoga wherever they like. But the "experience in the bush" thing is becoming a symptom of what has now been enshrined in NSW legislation to promote NPs as commercial tourism venues rather than being set aside primarily for conservation to preserve biodiversity, and for self-reliant, passive recreation.

I don't really have an answer for your concerns but I have in the past made submissions on NP management plan reviews and similar. I'll continue to do that where I can. It appears that the conference you attended doesn't/didn't have a public interface?

Phillipsart wrote:I am under the impression that it would be very dangerous, if walkers have to share with trail bike riders and mountain bike riders. A fatality highly possible, and not to mention the damage done to the tracks, particularly by trail bike riders.
Keep them away from us, I say.

This is the reason I think walkers need to be part of the conversation. MTB riders would like their own tracks where possible, but if they can't they are happy to share with walkers and other users. With well designed tracks there may be places where this is safe. But it will effect the walking experience. This is a great reason we need to be helping land managers understand how sharing tracks with other users impacts walkers. And also working with MTB, horse riders etc to understand their needs, so that we might be able to find a solution that work for everyone.
Matt

johnw wrote:Matt, From what I can see in that link that whole conference was organised and run by MTB/cycling groups for their own interests. Probably not a surprise that walking didn't feature. I'd never heard of that organisation before. Were any walking groups such as NPA involved?

Hi John, thanks for your thoughts.
NPA was there for a day, and Bill from bushwalknig Australia. This years conference was organized by Bike SA, like many conferences it gets handed around to different people each year. I think Bike SA did a good job trying to attract a wide range of track/trail users, but I just got the feeling that the people who wanted more access are gearing up well, and walkers who have enjoyed great access for many years where greatly lacking. Public policy is often driven by vocal public opinion.

johnw wrote:I don't really have an answer for your concerns but I have in the past made submissions on NP management plan reviews and similar. I'll continue to do that where I can. It appears that the conference you attended doesn't/didn't have a public interface?

Keeping an eye on the plans of management reviews for the parks we know and love is a great way of getting involved and having a say. These documents (in most states) once signed off become a legally binding set of rules. A great way to get involved, good idea.

Thanks

Matt

G'day all

I attended one of the Tracks and Trails conferences a couple of years ago, in my role as ranger in charge of a bunch of parks on the Sunshine Coast In QLD. We also noted how well organised the other user groups seemed to be organised.
One of the reasons (in QLD anyway) was that at that time with the South East QLD Forest Agreement about to be implimented, these groups were under threat of losing most of their traditional areas. The long established National Parks were seen as being for walkers and climbers, and the State Forest and other tenures being for MTB, trailbikes, dog walkers, 4WD groups, horse riders, pogo stick clubs and all the others. The state was wanting to increase the percent of National Park it had so it was proposed that most of these areas be converted to Nat Pk, pretty much ruling out most of the above activities.

This triggered these user groups to get very organised, very quickly, while the walkers would still have access no matter what the outcome. Parks in QLD was struggling with these groups as we hadn't had to deal with them before, didn't really know the different needs of each of the groups, and weren't ready for how organised they were.

The walkers were represented to a minor degree by the NPA, but they weren't seen to be reflecting the needs or wants of the vast majority of walkers who don't belong to clubs etc. Having input to planning drafts etc is a good way to go as the issues raised need to be addressed as part of the planning process. This forum has a hell of a lot of experienced walkers in its mix with all sorts of backgrounds, and I would imagine would be able to thrash out then put up some robust comments. Not sure of the best way to do that at this stage, and it may depend on the proposed plan format.

On another note, the sharing of tracks is a tricky one too. One of these parks I had, had over 100km of 'shared' fire trail, MTB/walkers and horses. There was also countless illegal trail bikes. The biggest conflict we had was between walkers/horse riders and MTB's. Main complaint was the speed that the bikes could reach, and you can't hear them coming. The walkers and horses (or at least their riders) commented that even though they hated trail bikes at least they could hear them coming and get out of the way. On the Sunshine Coast we also averaged a couple of deaths a year with trailbikes colliding head on. It was around about that time that I got tired of the constant battle and shifted camp to Mt Field, where I pretty much only have to deal with slightly odd walkers .


Cheers

Binder

"Slightly odd walkers" - that sounds like a great name for a walking club

Thanks Binder
There is some great insights there.
"Not sure of the best way to do that at this stage" same - just wanting to bounce ideas around and see what comes.
I think the walkers outside clubs are very poorly represented as well, which is interesting as most of MTB riders are not in clubs but have seemed to get organised through forums like this.
I am curious to see who also comes out of the wood work, your experience as a ranger I think will give some great insight into how to grab the attention of Parks organisations.
I wonder if we need to think about if there is any real concern about loosing anything, and if so what we are worried about loosing.

Matt

wildwalks wrote:I wonder if we need to think about if there is any real concern about loosing anything, and if so what we are worried about loosing.

The reason I and most of my friends go bushwalking is to get away from civilisation. In particular, the speed of it all and the noise of it all. Horses have a place in that they are "natural", although I would not want to see them everywhere because of the environmental consequences (weed distribution, etc).

But MTB and trail bikes embody exactly what we want to get away from. And "sharing" means we lose what we are out there for.

I have responded to NP plans of management drafts a few times. It is not difficult - just go through it point by point and pick out the inconsistencies, the thoughtlessness and ignorance of the non-bushwalking writers of the plan, the downright silly or even stupid proposals.

The list of NSW draft plans used to be published in the NSW NPA Journal, but they have dropped this in the revamped version. Anyone know how to get notified of the release of new draft plans?

davidmorr wrote:The list of NSW draft plans used to be published in the NSW NPA Journal, but they have dropped this in the revamped version.

Thanks David,
True hey, that you may still have a track to walk on, but you may loose the reason to walk on it.
I will raise the idea with the NPA to start that up again, that is a great idea. I know with NPWS you can sign up to review specific parks POM's. I can't find a list of plans under review.
Do other states have good systems to help people keep on top of proposed changes??

Matt

wildwalks wrote:

davidmorr wrote:The list of NSW draft plans used to be published in the NSW NPA Journal, but they have dropped this in the revamped version.

Thanks David,
True hey, that you may still have a track to walk on, but you may loose the reason to walk on it.
I can't find a list of plans under review.

Matt - pretty straightforward: OEH main page - knowledge centre dropdown menu- publications - related links: PoM's: two clicks from the home page. Royal and Georges River up for registration now. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkm ... tPlans.htm

david - I find it strange that you find a bicycle part of the 'speed and noise' of civilisation. Other posters in the thread are compaining they are too quiet ! Sharing with the rest of society is a pretty easy thing.

The last NW gummint had a plan to increase visitation to NSW NP's substantially. AFAIK the current gummint is still on that track and is likely to kick NPWS even harder to meet such goals. As the general way to meet that will be concentrated visitation in a number of areas and general disregard of the rest, the opportunities for solitude will still abound IMO.

climberman wrote:david - I find it strange that you find a bicycle part of the 'speed and noise' of civilisation. Other posters in the thread are compaining they are too quiet ! Sharing with the rest of society is a pretty easy thing.

+1. On Saturday I had a choice between bushwalking or MTB riding. Partly as a result of this discussion I chose to do about 30km of trail riding on my MTB in Royal NP on shared trails, to remind myself of what it's like on both sides of the fence. I had numerous encounters with walkers, all were friendly. I rang my bell when approaching from behind. I slowed down and greeted the walkers. The behaviour was was reciprocated. It can work.

In NSW bikes are generally not permitted on walking tracks. In most places that I bushwalk they are not present. I would be concerned at any proposal to change that to allow bikes on these tracks. My understanding is that they want their own separate facilities. As I commented earlier, I don't want to see bikes, or horses for that matter, on (walking only) tracks in remote areas such as declared wilderness.

I'm struggling with the idea of bikes being able to negotiate many existing walking tracks anyway. While they do want technically challenging single track facilities, they'd still have to be navigable. Can you imagine (for example) someone trying to ride down Perrys Track in the Blue Mountains. Or maybe even worse, trying to ride up it .

I think very few riders are after full-blown access to all walking trails in NSW NP's. Perry's would be no good, but the walk out to Lockley's would make a great ride ! There is however a desire to have either seperate singletrack, or access to certain tracks, or specific access to certain management trails (esp as they are generally fire trails accessed by 4WD at least annually). KNP is a wonderful example of this potential, there are some great rides accessible there; the only legal cycling in a dedicated 'wilderness' (whatever that is) area in NSW. Many riders would like a similar access to the Katoomba to Mittagong tracks through the SCA zone. This is another legal stupidity. The road is boring walking, but'd be great riding. Glenrock has recently gone to some cycling-only tracks, a new venture for NSW NPWS.

Anyway, I would advise any fishing walkers on the Cascades trail never to lie their rods down over the fire trail when they stop for a breather... bunny hopping two Sage's at 45 clicks was fun for me but I reckon they had their heart in their mouths !

... over 100km of 'shared' fire trail, MTB/walkers and horses...[/quote]

While I prefer to see no-one, mounted or otherwise, when I'm walking, surely a well-maintained firetrail /can be safely shared?
Trouble is, most of the track walking I do in NSW is on firetrails because there is very little in the way of dedicated walking tracks in the Snowies - it's firetrails (of varying standards) or cross-country.

As for ringing your bike's bell: deaf people go bushwalking, you know . . .

north-north-west wrote:As for ringing your bike's bell: deaf people go bushwalking, you know . . .

From my experience, all MTB riders think all walkers are deaf. Never ever heard a bell.

climberman wrote:

wildwalks wrote:david - I find it strange that you find a bicycle part of the 'speed and noise' of civilisation. Other posters in the thread are compaining they are too quiet ! Sharing with the rest of society is a pretty easy thing.

Firstly, you only addressed the noise problem. The speed is the other part, with people sometimes having to jump for their lives.

Secondly, it's not sharing if they get what they want and I don't.

Hi David, we'll have to disagree. I feel you've just demonstrated a definition of sharing that would do a two year old proud, and reminds me why I largely gave up any walking involved with 'bushwalkers' for a decade. Much talk of freedom, but only for the chosen few.

Use it or lose it.

Last year when I was home convalescing I watched the series “The National Parks America’s best idea”, it was a fascinating series and highly recommended viewing.

One of the things I got out of the series is even though National Parks are important for conservation, if we do not use them we could lose them, Governments funding is generally related to visitor numbers and I doubt the few serious bushwalkers that visit the parks each year are enough numbers to even get the funding to maintain even the basics.

We as bushwalkers need mountain bikers, down hill skiers, cross country skiers, snow shoe-ers, day trippers, picnickers, 4 wheel drivers, motor bikers, car campers, fisher persons, eco tourism, we need tracks like the metal walking track from Thredbo Top Station to Rawsons Pass, we need lookouts, we need tracks that have wheel chair access, we need resorts like Thredbo and Perisher, we need good roads that allow car access, after all these people have access to a very small area compared to the areas the serious bushwalker has access to.

In all of the years I have walked in the KNP, Namadgi, Budawangs and a few others, I have seen very few mountain bikes and a lot of the ones I have seen they are usually pushing their bikes up steep hills, I have done the occasional MTB ride in National Parks.

BTW on my recent Main Range snowshoe trip when coming down of Mt Kosciuszko I noticed three funny shaped walkers on the Kosciuszko road near Seaman Hut at the north end of Etheridge Ridge, a bit further on I realized they where pushing bikes and later I saw that one was riding up the side of Etheridge Ridge above the Rawsons Pass Toilet, and I thought I was crazy.

Tony

^ this.

Access for multiple interest groups is what keeps National Parks relevant, from a funding point of view. The only thing I ask for as a walker, is enough walking tracks to be maintained so if I choose to, I can mostly avoid having to walk on wide 4WD tracks and therefore share the walk with cars.

We've certainly got enough space out there to be able to create multiple experiences for different groups. Although I'm not surprised that bushwalkers are under-represented in the discussion - I'm not sure there's a lot of us out there. Last weekend, beautiful weather in Victoria and I walked the BawBaw plateau end to end. Didn't see a single other person all weekend. Wouldn't be surprised if we had the entire plateau to ourselves.

I am first and foremost a bushwalker. However, I also enjoy MTB riding. They are compatible activities in my opinion and experience. But rules and codes of conduct do need to be in place.

davidmorr wrote:The speed is the other part, with people sometimes having to jump for their lives.

Well, not in my experience. I can only speak for myself but I certainly don't practise such behaviour.

davidmorr wrote:From my experience, all MTB riders think all walkers are deaf. Never ever heard a bell.

Sweeping generalisations are great aren't they. I've already explained that I do use a bell, always. OK I get the message. You appear to be intolerant of cyclists and don't want them in the bush under any circumstances.

davidmorr wrote:Secondly, it's not sharing if they get what they want and I don't.

Have to agree with climberman. That comment is very disappointing David. I think it's unlikley to further the cause of walker's interests, but rather alienate those who would otherwise be allies. The reciprocal of that definition of sharing is that "if I get my way no one else gets theirs". In my opinion this automatically excludes all other users in favour of an elitist group. Not what I thought this topic was looking to achieve.

Tony wrote:Use it or lose it...

Tony, You raised some very good points which now have me re-considering some of my own views. I will try to have a look at that series. Mmm, riding up Etheridge Ridge .

north-north-west wrote:As for ringing your bike's bell: deaf people go bushwalking, you know . . .

NNW, That's a valid concern. I don't really have an answer for you but happy to consider any suggestions. I did encounter a very elderly male walker on the weekend. I approached very slowly and rang my bell twice but he clearly didn't hear me (calling out may have been another option in hindsight). Most of the trails I ride are fairly wide, so I was able to give him a wide berth. I rode past at walking pace and we exchanged greetings once he could see me.

johnw wrote:

north-north-west wrote:As for ringing your bike's bell: deaf people go bushwalking, you know . . .

NNW, That's a valid concern. I don't really have an answer for you but happy to consider any suggestions. I did encounter a very elderly male walker on the weekend. I approached very slowly and rang my bell twice but he clearly didn't hear me (calling out may have been another option in hindsight). Most of the trails I ride are fairly wide, so I was able to give him a wide berth. I rode past at walking pace and we exchanged greetings once he could see me.

It's something people don't tend to think about, but it's simply a matter of education. It should be the standard to slow down and pass walkers as wide as possible, rather than assuming right of way. I have walked on MTB tracks on a few occasions and kept a very careful (and nervous) look out for bikes.

Probably my first love is flyfishing, but walking, 4w driving and in the past, trail riding are all activities that I enjoy.

I don't enjoy the eletist idealism of some users of the bush who think they should be allowed and nobody else lest it become too crowded, too noisy, too many kids or whatever.
I think that a more sharing attitude is better, and when our paths cross and we are pursuing different interests, surely we can wave and be pleasant instead of snarling.

A very good way to loose what you've got is to not share it, then when someone wants to take it off you, you have no comrades to support you in your fight.

FF

We also have to remember that not all MTB riders are created equal.

I regularly walk and ride through my local Nat Pk's, for the reasons stated above the peace and tranquility, exercise, time to be alone etc and slow right down or stop as soon as I see any walkers as some of the tracks are fairly narrow, and then there are others and I know for a fact as I have seen them, mainly organised groups, that refuse to slow down or even acknowledge others as they pass at great speed. As a walker I know how intimidating it can be but I also know how much fun it is as a rider but I personally assume that walkers have right of way.

north-north-west wrote:It's something people don't tend to think about, but it's simply a matter of education. It should be the standard to slow down and pass walkers as wide as possible, rather than assuming right of way. I have walked on MTB tracks on a few occasions and kept a very careful (and nervous) look out for bikes.

I agree NNW but I don't think its a simple matter of education, do we start putting up 'walkers have right of way' signs up everywhere to add to our sign-saturated environment? It would be nice if there was an effective way to get the message out there but I cant really see how

climberman wrote: KNP is a wonderful example of this potential, there are some great rides accessible there; the only legal cycling in a dedicated 'wilderness' (whatever that is) area in NSW.

Climberman, G'day. Happily, this is not strictly so, talking about NSW. The Bicentennial National Trail is a multi-use trail. If a MTB rider is capable of handling the terrain, where the trail crosses so-called dedicated wilderness, they/MTBs are able to. In the NP Bikes in Parks Act (revised in 2002 and currently being revised again) on page 3, 'bikes can be pushed or carried on walking tracks'. I do check before hand if I need access, I've always been given the OK by NSW and ACT National Parks Rangers.

I've not ever been able to come to grips with what NPs call a dedicated wilderness or a NEW wilderness or a gazetted wilderness ... I like the 250,000,000 year old wilderness, the traditional wilderness. There is a lot of it still out there.

Here in the ACT the so-called wilderness is only the catchment of the storage dams and finishes along the western ACT/NSW Border. Dropping over the western edge of the Brindies is no longer being in a wilderness? OK that is interesting knowing that Wilderness stops at survey cairns and at lines on a map.

I don't think anywhere in the Eastern States on the mainland meets UNESCO's criteria for wilderness. Maybe the word Wilderness should be titled NP's scaled-down-wilderness-pakages.

Following other comments;

MTBs do not cause the significant damage to the natural environment and trails that is though. The popular misconceptions about the negative social impacts of sharing trails would also have us believe that all trail user groups dislike other trail user groups. They are just that, all misconceptions.

The damage to the environment was done when the trail was originally made. The New Zealand Dept of Agriculture and the Dept of Conservation and thirdly (I think?) Sport and Recreation, have carried out extensive research into this. It was found that a bike's rolling weight has little impact on the ground, even less than the impact caused by heavily laden walkers. The major impact is caused to the environment when user groups get shut out of areas and then no one reports on the state of the conditions and then the maintenance or rehabilitation, is then not timely. A perfect example was closing the trails in the Gibraltar Ranges when the range was declared a World Heritage Park. The only major plant that has re-established itself on the closed trails there is Lantana. How unpredictable! Like the Senior Ranger said to me, about the conditions, "We don't have the time to go and check what is happening." We users did it for them!

This is the New Zealand Dept of Conservation's Report ... http://www.followscience.com/groups_rep ... _frt6g.pdf

The thought about walkers always having access, so maybe we don't need to front up to conferences, we're OK, then think again. The UNESCO programmes, 'Sustainable Environments' and 'Man and the Biosphere' are coming to a region near you, if not already. Count the proliferation of Biospheres, especially in the US and here in Oz. The Biospheres will only work towards the ideal when they are linked with wildlife corridors ... and made only accessible to land managers, and wildlife and environmental research officers. It is happening by degrees in the US and is becoming a major issue to traditional user groups.

Have you ever read the 'Bicycle and the Bush' by Jim Fitzpatrick or about the exploits of Francis Birtles who circumnavigated the continent twice and crossed the continent seven times before formed roads ... it is not just horses and feet that are a traditional mode of transportation in the bush. Before anyone thinks a bicycle is a mechanical means of transportation and so doesn't belong in the bush, shoes give a mechanical advantage too, so do walking poles.

There is something else that is little known about the traditional use of bikes, where our national parks now are. Not all shepherds and drovers drove their flocks and herds on horseback many used the bicycle because they couldn't afford horses. Same with shearers and other rural workers. In NSW when many of the Travelling Stock Routes on the Great Dividing Range were decommissioned they became major sections of National Parks. No one complained then that bicycles did harm. Once I rode a bike along the Main Range and the two Park Rangers I met were impressed. Now we can't even ride to the summit of Kosci' or along the range without incurring fines, in the thousands of dollars.

NPA is part of the Stock Route Coalition attempting to help save these priceless ribbons of genetic inheritance. Vids from some of the key speeches given at the NPA's July conference about the preservation of the TSRs ... http://www.youtube.com/npansw#p/u/0/NO3El7cVt6g

Warren.

WarrenH wrote:The New Zealand Dept of Agriculture and the Dept of Conservation and thirdly (I think?) Sport and Recreation, have carried out extensive research into this. It was found that a bike's rolling weight has little impact on the ground, even less than the impact caused by heavily laden walkers.

My reaction is based purely on personal observation, of course, but I find this very difficult to believe. Too many times I've seen fresh, deeply indented bicycle tyre tracks on ground where my boots barely make a mark.

Lightweight walker you eh.

I'm not a big person, and I'm capable of stepping lightly, but wouldn't have thought I was all that special.

north-north-west wrote: ... I find this very difficult to believe. Too many times I've seen fresh, deeply indented bicycle tyre tracks on ground where my boots barely make a mark.

Mother Gaia, I come on behalf of all MTBs to apologise for destroying nature and beg for your forgiveness. We are sorry for being so selfish we never meant to kill nature.

(I hope you are Mother Gaia, and I'm not talking to another self-centred human?)

north-north-west wrote: ... wouldn't have thought I was all that special.

Tell us something that we don't know

Warren.

PS, please don't report me to Nik again, I'm staring at my fourth official warning. I'll be gone this time for sure.

PSS,If you need to report me again do it here ... http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/ ... ty_Hotline ... I've got two strikes left with these guys.

WarrenH wrote:PS, please don't report me to Nik again, I'm staring at my fourth official warning. I'll be gone this time for sure.

Nobody reported you last time. You were both found by the moderation team to be in breach of the rules, and were both sent a warning. Please don't start it up again now.

Some changes with MTB's in NSW http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/official-trails-to-stop-mountain-bikers-in-their-illegal-tracks-20111002-1l3w7.html