Help with some references?

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by Tamyka Bell, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    In my local paper this week, there was an article about
    damage being done by "young hoodlums" in a local reserve.
    Apparently these hoodlums are leaving bongs in the bushland
    and are riding their bikes. The spokesperson for the local
    conservation group made a comment that "cycling causes 100
    times the damage that bushwalking does" which I think is a
    ludicrous statement. I vaguely remembered someone posting
    something about damage levels... and hoped someone could
    point me in the right direction (because I have heaps of
    marking to do and no time to go find a vacant computer with
    web access...) I'd like to write a letter calling the
    article "claptrap" or similar.

    As an aside, I've seen those hoodlums while running in
    their. They were carrying knives and small axes and big
    backpacks. They were riding their bikes on the formed trails
    and not skidding. Somehow I don't think it was their cycling
    causing the damage...

    Tam
     
    Tags:


  2. Bikesoiler

    Bikesoiler New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0

    From http://www.imba.com/


    This page is full of refs, papers etc.

    http://www.imba.com/resources/science/white_et_al_study.pdf
    http://www.imba.com/resources/science/impact_summary.html
    http://www.imba.com/resources/science/marion_nps_report_intro.html
     
  3. Bikesoiler

    Bikesoiler New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    From http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html

    Trail Shock - Studies Weigh Mountain Biking and Hiking Impacts

    New research suggests that mountain bikes and boots leave equal wear and tear on trails.
    By Michael Lanza. AMC Outdoors Magazine, April 2001

    Reprinted with the permission of the Appalachian Mountain Club. Visit them at http://www.outdoors.org/

    Lead photo: Mountain biker near lake. Caption "New research suggests that mountain bikes and boots leave equal wear and tear on trails. How bikers ride and where hikers step may make more of a difference."

    Describing himself as "sort of stubborn," Bob Moss is the type of person who questions assumptions. So in the 1990s, when he saw the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference (NY-NJTC) and other hiking groups angrily blaming trail widening and ruts on mountain bikers, he decided to conduct his own study.

    A few years ago, he began counting hikers and mountain bikes and monitoring the condition of trails in New Jersey's Ringwood State Park, near his home. After months of observation, though, he realized he didn't have enough time to correlate the types of users and trail impacts. But he did note that trails popular with mountain bikers sometimes widened in spots.

    Moss enters this emotional issue as no defender of mountain bikers. "I really don't like bicycles in the woods," he says, "but I also don't like people talking and not knowing (what they're talking about). At all these meetings it always seemed to me the same thing: the bicyclists saying, 'We don't damage the trails,' and the hikers saying (to bikers), 'You're ruining them.' That's where the curiosity came from,"

    He is not alone in pondering the question of whether mountain bikes accelerate trail erosion more than the boots of hikers - something some hikers, especially on the Northeast's heavily used trails, have alleged for years. As NY-NJSTC President Gary Haugland says, "We are a trail-maintaining organization. We see the evidence of (bike) impacts," Since the mid-1980s, a host of scientific studies has attempted to measure the comparative effects of hiking boots and fat tires on trails. But interviews with hiking and bicycling groups and researchers in the field - including the co-author of a new study slated for publication this year - reveal that very little hard data exist to prove conclusively that bikes do more damage to trails than do boots. And those studies that have examined the evidence widely conclude that the charge against mountain bikes simply does not stick.

    Many people interviewed for this story cite a 1995 study conducted by researcher Gordon Cessford for the New Zealand Department of Conservation, which concluded, "It has not been established in the research done to date that mountain bikes have greater overall impact on tracks than do walkers." Another researcher, Donald Weir an environmental consultant and engineer in Alberta, Canada, authored a report in 2000 that synthesized the findings of various studies. "I found there's very little statistical difference (in physical impact on a trail between a hiker and a mountain bicyclist," Weir says.

    As a result of her graduate research at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, Eden Thurston co-authored a paper to be published this year in the Journal of Environmental Management on a study that measured trail damage from an equal number of one-way downhill passes by bikers and hikers on 10-15 degree slopes on an Ontario park. Thurston's study took place on about 667 acres at an elevation of approzimaterly 1,350 feet, in maple forest with fine, sandy-loam soils. Hikers and bikers traveled over separate plots of ground, with researchers measuring the effects at intervals up to 500 passes. While emphasizing that her work "isn't the last word on this topic, (and) a lot more needs to be done," she found "there was no significant difference in the direct physical impacts of hikers and mountain bikers."

    "There seems to be a suburban myth that observable trail degradation is the result of mountain biking," says Thurston. "People can see the tire treads, but is that really causing trail erosion?"

    Yu-Fai Leung Ph.D, an assistant professor at North Carolina State University, who has examined trail erosion for the National Park service and others, says the type and amount of use has far less to do with erosion than factors like amount of rainfall and trail steepness and design. "Environmental factors" - including trail slope and precipitation - "have more to do with (causing) erosion."

    "Mountain-bike impact (is most likely to result from) someone skidding brakes, which is bad technique and not a good thing to do," says Phil Keyes of the New England Mountain Bike Association (NEMBA). Keyes agrees with many researchers that "water going down a trail does infinitely more damage than bikes." But critics in the Northeast charge that research results so far have reflected other regions' soils, topography, and more dispersed use, and therefore don't necessarily apply here, The NY-NJTC is interested in finding answers to these questions based on conditions in the Northeast, according to Haugland, Late in 2000, the NY-NJTC formed an advisory committee of scientists from various disciplines to examine trail erosion. As of early February, the committee had just begun to meet and had no timetable for releasing findings.

    "We have to move the issue beyond out respective passions," Haugland says. "Our feeling is that the data (from elsewhere) don't conform to the needs here in the eastern forest. We see the evidence of (bike) impacts, but it has not been studied scientifically."

    If, in fact, boot and tire impacts do turn out be roughly equivalent, is biker-hiker animosity likely to evaporate? No, suggests other research that concludes conflicts between recreational user groups arise partly because one group considers another's behavior unacceptable, and their motivations for being outdoors are very different. Andrew Norkin, the AMC's White Mountains Trails manager, points out, "There were that historically were limited to hiking before biking came along, and folks weren't receptive to a new user group"

    Scott Reid of Leave No Trace, which advocates low-impact recreational practices, calls the problem "a turf thing. Especially in the East, the trails have been built by hikers, they've put in the sweat equity, and suddenly along cones the new kid on the block riding fast, skidding around turns, and they're loud. There are social issues."

    What's the solution? In the 1990s, the NY-NJTC actively opposed "the redesignation of hiking trails as mountain biking trails without our knowledge of consent," Haugland says, while also encouraging land managers to establish separate bike trails. "We believe that in order to serve hikers and mountain bikers, there need to be separate networks of trails." The AMC trail-use policy also recognizes that in some cases land managers "should consider designated single-use trails" in a given areas and "may wish to designate mountain-biking-only trails as well." George Cartamil, a volunteer trailmaintenance supervisor with the AMC's New York-North Jersey Chapter, points out that he has advocated for parks allowing mountain-bike groups to build their own trails. But he says he has yet to see the bike community step forward.

    "Even if bikers did build their own trails, Cartamil adds, they will invade hikers' trails. What are you going to have, a ranger on every trail? That's impossible. It's an ongoing battle, and it creates a constant friction between both groups."

    Back in New Jersey, Bob Moss points to Ringwood State Park as a model for reducing conflicts between mountain bikers and hikers. The park set up a single-track bike race route. Plus, bikers have approached him seeking advice on how to avoid trail widening, and Moss later saw where bikers had done trail work. "There are ways to build trails that will stand up to bicycle use or heavy hiking use," Moss says. "If there are enough trails to keep mountain bikers happy and they don't have to go on hiking trails, that should take care of the problem."


    (Sidebar) Why Wheels Seem Worse

    Why does it sometimes seem that mountain biking damages trails more than hiking does? Here are two ideas posed by researchers: "It would appear that the main physical impact from the advent of mountain-biking really lies in the increase in user numbers., rather than in the nature of then new activity." - "Off-Road Impacts of Mountain Bikes: a Review and discussion." Gordon R. Cessford, Science & Research Series No. 92, 1995; Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

    "Bikers enjoy the challenge of obstacles on the trail, such as gullies, roots, rocks, and water. Many of these features are the result of erosion. If mountain bikers seek out eroded areas, then bikes will contribute further to soil erosion." - Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on the Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Eden Thurston and Richard J. Reader, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada (to be published in a 201 issue of the Journal of Environmental Management).

    Michael Lanza is a frequent contributor to AMC Outdoors.

    AMC Outdoors Magazine, April 2001
     
  4. In article <[email protected]>,
    Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:

    > The spokesperson for the local
    > conservation group made a comment that "cycling causes 100
    > times the damage that bushwalking does" which I think is a
    > ludicrous statement. I vaguely remembered someone posting
    > something about damage levels...


    This should get you started: <http://tinyurl.com/yjdpxm>

    --
    Shane Stanley
     
  5. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Shane Stanley wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > The spokesperson for the local
    > > conservation group made a comment that "cycling causes 100
    > > times the damage that bushwalking does" which I think is a
    > > ludicrous statement. I vaguely remembered someone posting
    > > something about damage levels...

    >
    > This should get you started: <http://tinyurl.com/yjdpxm>



    If I had a computer with WWW access...

    T
     
  6. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Bikesoiler wrote:
    >
    > From http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html
    >
    > TRAIL SHOCK - STUDIES WEIGH MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING IMPACTS
    >
    > New research suggests that mountain bikes and boots leave equal wear
    > and tear on trails.
    > By Michael Lanza. AMC Outdoors Magazine, April 2001
    >
    > Reprinted with the permission of the Appalachian Mountain Club. Visit
    > them at http://www.outdoors.org/

    <snip>

    Perfect! Ta.

    Tam
     
  7. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Stuart Lamble wrote:
    >
    > On 2006-11-02, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Shane Stanley wrote:
    > >> This should get you started: <http://tinyurl.com/yjdpxm>

    > >
    > > If I had a computer with WWW access...

    >
    > Straight copy-and-paste, no formatting beyond what vim did for me
    > automagically. Beware unicode gunk that didn't translate properly into
    > ASCII.
    >
    > DRAFT PRO-FORMA MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS AUSTRALIA INC.
    > SUBMISSION

    <snip>

    you guys are good to me :)

    T
     
  8. On 2006-11-02, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Stuart Lamble wrote:
    >> Straight copy-and-paste, no formatting beyond what vim did for me
    >> automagically. Beware unicode gunk that didn't translate properly into
    >> ASCII.

    >
    > you guys are good to me :)


    Don't worry, we'll claim our payment in due course. :)

    --
    My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
    the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
     
  9. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:04:13 +1000
    Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    > conservation group made a comment that "cycling causes 100
    > times the damage that bushwalking does" which I think is a
    > ludicrous statement. I vaguely remembered someone posting
    > something about damage levels... and hoped someone could


    I was rather surprised to hear that bicycles apparently cause more
    damage to bushland than motorcycles.

    No refs alas, but a little thought makes me wonder about the effect of
    skinny tyres.

    I'll see if I can get some pointers from the people who told me the
    Nat Parks guys say mountain bikers are worse than dirt bikers.

    Zebee
     
  10. In aus.bicycle on Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:35:22 +1100
    Bikesoiler <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > From http://www.imba.com/


    To make sure you are getting it all, try finding information from
    either the opposition or someone not pro bicycle.

    Might be harder, but it's always wise to find the opposing point of
    view.

    Zebee
     
  11. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    >
    > In aus.bicycle on Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:35:22 +1100
    > Bikesoiler <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > From http://www.imba.com/

    >
    > To make sure you are getting it all, try finding information from
    > either the opposition or someone not pro bicycle.
    >
    > Might be harder, but it's always wise to find the opposing point of
    > view.
    >
    > Zebee


    It's a fair point and if I was writing for a reputable
    journal I'd do that.

    But the anti-bike point of view has already been published
    in the newspaper that I'm writing to. I just want to make a
    "check your facts" statement - as these other sources
    disagree with the spokesperson's uncited statement/anecdotal
    reference.

    I'll let them look up reputable sources that back up their
    statements.

    Personally I think it's a case of deliberate destruction
    where it's occurring, and that the misled youths (I mean
    hoodlums) would be causing that destruction even if they
    were on foot. (When I came across the axe- and large
    knife-weilding "hoodlums" they were within a kilometer of
    the reserve entrance - I doubt they needed their bikes to
    get there.)

    Tam
     
  12. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Zebee Johnstone wrote:
    >
    > In aus.bicycle on Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:04:13 +1000
    > Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > conservation group made a comment that "cycling causes 100
    > > times the damage that bushwalking does" which I think is a
    > > ludicrous statement. I vaguely remembered someone posting
    > > something about damage levels... and hoped someone could

    >
    > I was rather surprised to hear that bicycles apparently cause more
    > damage to bushland than motorcycles.
    >
    > No refs alas, but a little thought makes me wonder about the effect of
    > skinny tyres.
    >
    > I'll see if I can get some pointers from the people who told me the
    > Nat Parks guys say mountain bikers are worse than dirt bikers.


    From the skimming that I did, the points were that dirt
    bikers did more damage going up and down steep rough terrain
    (weight consideration) and up steep terrain (power, weight
    on back wheel, etc) rather than in all areas. And it
    acknowledged that inexperienced mtbers skidding down hills
    were very very bad (which is why I brake before descents,
    and control my speed early, so I can maintain control, or so
    I tell people, but really it's because I'm scared).

    From visiting Beerburrum forest I can see pretty obviously
    where the dirtbikers cause damage - where the forestry
    trucks have come in and done recent felling, and the soil is
    loose, they stir it up. And like the refs said, water
    flowing down the slopes does more damage. But on the
    majority of trails etc up there, you can't really tell the
    difference (except the old 4WD tracks, now THOSE are a
    mess).

    The naughty dirt bikers in BFP seem to stick to the
    management roads and there's no visible damage in there.
    Fancy that, eh?

    Tam
     
  13. Terryc

    Terryc Guest

    Bikesoiler wrote:

    > From http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html
    >
    > TRAIL SHOCK - STUDIES WEIGH MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING IMPACTS
    >
    > New research suggests that mountain bikes and boots leave equal wear
    > and tear on trails.


    The problem here is that australian Mountain Bikers are just sitting on
    their collective arses as if this supports their claims. It doesn't.

    We've canned aussie farmers for treating Australian soils as if they are
    european soils for decades and now aussie mtb'ers are taking a study
    based on USA soils as supporting their claim that they cause as little
    damage as bushwalkers.

    There really needs to be an effort to show that the results are
    applicable to Australia.
     
  14. Friday

    Friday Guest

    Tamyka Bell wrote:
    > In my local paper this week, there was an article about
    > damage being done by "young hoodlums" in a local reserve.
    > Apparently these hoodlums are leaving bongs in the bushland
    > and are riding their bikes. The spokesperson for the local
    > conservation group made a comment that "cycling causes 100
    > times the damage that bushwalking does" which I think is a
    > ludicrous statement. I vaguely remembered someone posting
    > something about damage levels... and hoped someone could
    > point me in the right direction (because I have heaps of
    > marking to do and no time to go find a vacant computer with
    > web access...) I'd like to write a letter calling the
    > article "claptrap" or similar.
    >
    > As an aside, I've seen those hoodlums while running in
    > their. They were carrying knives and small axes and big
    > backpacks. They were riding their bikes on the formed trails
    > and not skidding. Somehow I don't think it was their cycling
    > causing the damage...
    >
    > Tam


    There was someone involved with the Southwest Mountain bike club (in
    Bunbury, Western Australia) who did a study as a Uni thesis and found
    that walkers did more damage, especially when walking downhill with a
    back pack. Contact Damon Willmore or Trek cycles in Bunbury for further
    details.

    Friday
     
  15. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well then, get off your own arse and have a gander at what local MTB groups are actually doing, here's a prime example from CORC, ditto numerous other interstate groups are working with land managers as well.

    http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/news.asp
    http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/papers.asp
    http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/letters.asp
    http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/tales.asp
    http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/stromlo.asp

    Closer to home, here's a ongoing example of the Lysterfield MTB group *working* with Parks Vic on trail access & maintainance. Bikesoiler assisted in organising these working bees, I simply idly stood around & took pics.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/tags/lysterfieldworkingbeeoct06/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/tags/lysterfieldworkingbeejune06/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/tags/lysterfieldworkingbeejuly05/
     
  16. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oi Tam, two items of light reading material for your perusal. If you want more "longhand" stuff, email moi & I'll send it to you.

    Also an older NZ report: Conflict in Recreation: the Case of Mountain-Bikers and Trampers. A Department of Conservation report by Chrys Horn, Dr. Patrick Devlin, Dr. David Simmons
    http://www.mountainbike.co.nz/politics/articles/horn/index.htm

    Lengthy but good. ;)

    SA: Eagle Mountain Bike Park
    http://www.bikesa.asn.au/mtb_projects/eagle.htm

    ****

    Cyclists respond to Kosciuszko National Park Draft Plan of Management
    November 24, 2004

    The following article is due to appear in Australian Cyclist and was written by Jeff Ibbotson, BFA Committee member and Vice President, Pedal Power ACT

    Plans are afoot to shut out cyclists from vast tracts Kosciuszko National Park if the NSW Government accepts its National Parks and Wildlife Service’s Draft Plan of Management for the Park.

    This is an issue of national significance. Park authorities in other States are eyeing keenly KNP’s attempt to exclude cycling from management roads in wilderness areas.

    The Bicycle Federation of Australia, Mountain Bike Australia, Bicycle NSW, Pedal Power ACT, and individual cyclists have been working together so you can keep cycling on all management roads and tracks in the Park.

    The Plan of Management for a park of such national significance provides the opportunity for the NPWS to set a national example fulfil Australia Cycling 1999 -2004 The National Strategy by promoting active healthy activities like cycle tourism.

    The Draft Plan would prohibit cycling on almost 500 kilometres of management roads within wilderness areas where cycling occurs now without significant impact. Concerns over impact on declared wilderness appear driven by ideology, rather than evidence and sound assessment of the relative environmental and social benefits and risks of the measures proposed.

    The damage and erosion furphy

    The KNP’s terrain and vegetation confines bikes to fire trails. True off road riding is virtually impossible. The existing Plan of Management confines riding to fire trails. The next Plan should as well.

    The Draft Plan suggests that bikes create greater impacts than other recreational uses. However, considerable research shows that bikes have no greater physical impact than foot traffic; in many cases the impact is less. Indeed the impact of feral horses and pigs on KNP is far greater than any human use. Two studies are worth mentioning.

    California researcher Crockett (1987) prepared had 45 cyclists ride 495 times over 12 study plots on a trail in dry, semi-wet, and wet conditions. The results showed mountain bikes and hikers caused comparable impact.

    Seney (1991) measured the impact of hikers, bicycles, horses and motor cyclists on two open trails and compared them with the condition of a closed trail. Each group crossed the study plots 100 times. The study concluded that ‘natural processes predominate, overshadowing any damage produced by trail users, and that it was difficult to distinguish bicycle impacts from hiker impacts on the measurements of sediment yield, water runoff, trail micro-relief changes and soil density changes’.

    Extensive studies have also been carried out on the development of tracks. They found that once a track is established, bikes are unlikely to cause any greater impact than any other uses.

    Access should be restricted only after robust, impartial and professional assessment that balances the relative environmental and social benefits and risks of the track specific proposed restriction, and only while risks outweigh benefits of use.

    Cycle touring stymied

    The Draft Plan proposes permitting wilderness areas cycling only on a small section of the Cascades Trails, and a small loop circuit inlcuding Dargals, Hell Hole Creek and Round Mountain Trails. The ban has no scientific basis, is unreasonable, and unfairly discriminates against sustainable and self-reliant cycling compared with other recreational pursuits.

    The proposed ban on and the location of the three declared wilderness areas across the Park effectively prevents sustainable and self reliant longer distance touring north-south along the Park’s management road network, for example, on the recently upgraded Grey Mare Fire Trail.

    The submissions called on NPWS to allow cycling on the all management roads, unless there is proven adverse impact that cannot be managed in any other way.

    A closure policy that is ridiculed as baseless, that diverts scarce NPWS resources and is openly ignored and simply cannot be achieved does no good for the reputation of the NPWS or the NSW Government.

    Cycling groups urged the development of a Sustainable Cycling Access Strategy for the Park with the involvement of cycling organisations, stakeholders and environmental experts.

    Health recreation and tourism benefits

    The KNP management roads and trails contributie to the health and well being of visitors from across Australia. To propose reducing access to tracks that rapidly will become overcrowded is not good for the health of the Park or its visitors.

    Recreation and nature-based tourism are among the stated values of the Park. Cycling contributes significantly to regional economies. The $700+ each paticipant spent while on a one day South Australian cycling event will be matched by BNSW’s RTA Big NSW Bike Riders who start in KNP in 2005.

    In Australia Cycling the Deputy Prime Minister says: ‘Increasing the amount of safe cycling in our communities will enhance the well being of all Australians.’ There are few better places to do that than KNP management roads and trails.

    Cycling routes should enables cyclists to enjoy and appreciate the Park’s significant environment from the north to the south.

    Put cycling and user conflict into perspective

    The Draft Plan ignores the limited overall impact of cyclists, confined to management roads and trails, traversing an area faster than other park users, minimising the impact of human waste and firewood depletion. Overall cyclist numbers are minimal. Most can ride in and out, without staying overnight.

    The perception that bicyles present a safety hazard is common. The Draft Plan reported conflict between cyclists and other Park users.

    Given that bikes are restricted to fire trails, with long sight lines and that the numbers of cyclists and walkers on any particular fire trail are few, the real possibility/probability of collision is negligible.

    The UK bridle way network provides thousands of kilometres of narrow, mixed use trails. The British Mountain Bike Federation’s Access Officer couldn’t trace one collision between a bike and a walker, despite many anecdotal reports. The UK’s high population density, and lack of public lands, leads to common use by riders of ancient rights of way, established for centuries, with traffic levels unheard of in Australia.

    Conflict and injury are rare on the many shared walking and cycling paths in Canberra and Sydney. These paths carry more walkers and cyclists (plus roller bladers and dogs) than any KNP service road, except perhaps the Summit Road from Charlottes Pass.

    Dispersed educated cycling over a larger minimises congestion and consequent conflict between users.

    A way forward

    BNSW representative Bruce Ashley, Tony Scott from MTBA and Pedal Power ACT’s Jeff Ibbotson met NPWS officials and proposed a way forward.

    There was consensus that the current NPWS State wide policy on cycling in declared wilderness areas is not in fact inconsistent with cycling in those areas, provided it is consistent with a Plan of Management for the Park and where wilderness values were not compromised.

    It emerged that opposition to cycling in wilderness is more driven by social and ideological concerns rather than serious adverse environmental impacts, which cannot be substantiated.

    BNSW then wrote to NPWS outlining essential components of a cycling access strategy, criteria for identifying a cycling network, and its key routes.

    BNSW proposed no cycling on some trails; an on-line permit system to regulate use of others; and unrestricted cycling on the periphery of wilderness areas to connect with longer distance touring and shorter loop circuits on outside the wilderness zones and outside the Park.

    What next

    BNSW, MTBA and Pedal Power ACT will continue to lobby to keep Kosci’s quality cycling. Readers who are interested in supporting bike riding in KNP can contact:

    Bicycle NSW GPO Box 272, Sydney, NSW, 2001 fax 02 9281 6099 [email protected]
    Mountain Bike Australia PO Box 17 Mirani Qld 4754 [email protected]
    Pedal Power ACT GPO Box 581 Canberra ACT 2601 fax 02 6248 7444 [email protected]

    Thanks to Bruce Ashley, Tony Scott and Stuart McDougall for material used in this article.


    ******

    MTBA signs landmark agreement with Parks Victoria
    September 20, 2004

    A landmark Memorandum of Cooperation was signed by both MTBA and Parks Victoria today. To our knowledge this is the first statement of cooperation made between a State land managing agency and a MTB organisation in Australia.

    Tony Scott, president of MTBA said, "This MOC represents the first step in ensuring that land managers in Victoria and Victorian MTBA affiliates can work together for the long term sustainability of Victoria's valuable natural areas while also providing for sustainable MTB opportunities. We are hopeful that this document will provide a template for other State land managers to use in developing working relationships between themselves, MTBA and it's local affiliates."

    Parks Victoria manage over 4.1m hectares of land in Victoria, representing 16% of Victoria's land area. MTBA is the peak MTB body in Australia and is represented by over 70 affiliated clubs and over 1850 members Australia wide. MTBA currently has 12 Victorian affiliated clubs.

    Further information about MTB advocacy can be obtained by contacting MTBA: [email protected] Further information about MTB advocacy in Victoria can be obtained by emailing MTBA's Victorian MTB advocacy team: [email protected]
     
  17. Terryc

    Terryc Guest

    cfsmtb wrote:
    > Terryc Wrote:
    >
    >>There really needs to be an effort to show that the results are
    >>applicable to Australia.

    >
    >
    > Well then, get off your own arse and have a gander at what local MTB
    > groups are actually doing, here's a prime example from CORC, ditto
    > numerous other interstate groups are working with land managers as
    > well.
    >
    > http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/news.asp
    > http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/papers.asp
    > http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/letters.asp
    > http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/tales.asp
    > http://www.corc.asn.au/trails/stromlo.asp


    lol, exactly what I am talking about.
    Pissing in the wind with unsubstantiated claims is going to bite them in
    the arse.
    Do not confuse purpose built courses as part of recreational facilties,
    for which there will be a allocation for ongoing maintenance, with the
    unsubstantiated general claims being advanced by mtb'ers that the
    overseas "research" proves their contention that mtb cause as little
    damages as bush walkers. It needs to be shown that this applies in
    Australia.
     
  18. TimC

    TimC Guest

    On 2006-11-02, Tamyka Bell (aka Bruce)
    was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
    > Stuart Lamble wrote:
    >>
    >> On 2006-11-02, Tamyka Bell <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> > Shane Stanley wrote:
    >> >> This should get you started: <http://tinyurl.com/yjdpxm>
    >> >
    >> > If I had a computer with WWW access...

    >>
    >> Straight copy-and-paste, no formatting beyond what vim did for me
    >> automagically. Beware unicode gunk that didn't translate properly into
    >> ASCII.
    >>
    >> DRAFT PRO-FORMA MOUNTAIN BIKE ACCESS AUSTRALIA INC.
    >> SUBMISSION

    > <snip>
    >
    > you guys are good to me :)


    I'm skimreading it -- and I come to the bit about hiking with
    backpacks vs plain walking vs mtbing. I have another datapoint to
    add. You can walk in places that have been eroded too much to ride
    in. Hence MTBs are self limiting, as far as the damage they cause,
    goes.

    Hiking in Tasmania, there were some very deep muddy sections that had
    been chewed up completely by the relatively small number of hikers
    around (we'd meet maybe 5 others a day, max). There would be no way
    you could get a MTB through there, which suggests to me that you'll
    find a natural limit to the amount of damage that cyclists can do to
    the trail.

    --
    TimC
    CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85
    Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. -- unk
     
  19. cfsmtb

    cfsmtb New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're completely out of touch with the subject aren't you? Both to read any of the mass of work & combined research that's readily avaliable? As individual who's (slightly) involved with trail maintanance, refer to the Lysterfield Working Bee photos, and working with land managers, your perceptions are far off the mark to what is actually occuring in reality regarding MTB trails & events.

    Sure there's the occasional silly gromits who nick dads shovel and go build kicker jumps in the local reserves, but these are in the minority compared to the positive attitude that MTB riders have towards land use. You're better off directing criticism towards 4WD drivers & those smaller earth moving machines, er, um, meant to type "dirtbikes", who wouldn't support worthy groups such as Treadlightly (see below)

    More from the Farkin "fiki"
    http://www.farkin.net/wiki/index.php/Trail_Maintenance/Management

    Treadlightly Australia:
    http://www.treadlightlyaustralia.com.au/

    The end of the Battle - Tread Lightly! goes quietly....
    In 1989 motoring writers Ian Glover and Brian Woodward attended a release of the Range Rover in the USA and were introduced to Tread Lightly! USA. They both came to the conclusion that this was the sort of thing that Australia needed to handle the ever increasing issue of dialogue with land management. For some time before this, Jan Scudamore and here husband Ivan had been thinking along similar lines, so when Messrs Glover and Woodward returned to Australia the idea began to take shape.

    The Scudamores embraced the Tread Lightly concept with enthusiasm from that point onward, and Brian Woodward agreed to take on the job of Chairman. The first Corporate sponsor at the time became Land Rover Australia, and the future for the fledgling organisation was looking rosy. Jan Scudamore recalls; “We really believed that in order to achieve a viable future for recreational land use, there had to be a united representation body that wasn’t hamstrung along club lines.” She continues, “The only way to do this was to put together a professional lobby group, and to do that we needed the support of the industries involved.”

    Brian Woodward in his address to the first National Congress told those attending; “It is quite possible that the 4wd companies could well become the tobacco industry of the 21st Century, and end up paying for the damage their products created in the past.” Strong words perhaps, but Brian Woodward seldom backed away from a challenge.

    Tread Lightly! went on to operate with a large pool of private members, and a goodly number of corporate members such as Overlander Magazine and many of their advertisers but unfortunately never gained the full support of the 4WD manufacturers who would have had much to gain from being involved. While Jeep Australia had been a Corporate Sponsor for a while, was a far cry from the situation in the USA where Chrysler Jeep backed it 100%.

    And so today, after 15 years Jan Scudamore has decided to close the shop on something she and Ivan had invested most of their time and no small amount of personal funds in. The recent passing of her husband Ivan was undoubtedly a time of great difficulty for Jan and quite possibly the point at which this immensely dedicated woman began to believe she was fighting a losing battle, despite the efforts of numerous board members and volunteers.

    “I think there’s another factor here as well,” she says. “The Tread Lightly message could even be close to irrelevant today. People are far more environmentally aware than ever before.” Going on to cite the changes in attitudes of four wheel drivers to the bush, she added. “I still believe that there will always be a need for a lobby group to cover everyone not just the 4wd people and bike riders, it just won’t be me.”

    So after all those years of riding out to do battle with the bureaucrats, Jan Scudamore will find life a little quieter, just don’t write her off yet.
     
  20. Tamyka Bell

    Tamyka Bell Guest

    Terryc wrote:
    >
    > Bikesoiler wrote:
    >
    > > From http://www.imba.com/resources/science/trail_shock.html
    > >
    > > TRAIL SHOCK - STUDIES WEIGH MOUNTAIN BIKING AND HIKING IMPACTS
    > >
    > > New research suggests that mountain bikes and boots leave equal wear
    > > and tear on trails.

    >
    > The problem here is that australian Mountain Bikers are just sitting on
    > their collective arses as if this supports their claims. It doesn't.
    >
    > We've canned aussie farmers for treating Australian soils as if they are
    > european soils for decades and now aussie mtb'ers are taking a study
    > based on USA soils as supporting their claim that they cause as little
    > damage as bushwalkers.
    >
    > There really needs to be an effort to show that the results are
    > applicable to Australia.


    Actually, in the context in which I was asking, there
    doesn't need to be such an effort - I am merely pointing out
    that a "spokesperson" has made up his so-called "facts".

    In the context of ensuring mountain biking in Australia is
    sustainable, I agree with you entirely.

    T
     
Loading...
Loading...