Re: Munda Biddi desecration



B

Bleve

Guest
gumby wrote:
> Bleve wrote:


> > Resources are for sharing.

>
> I agree that resources are for sharing, and as such water catchments
> are of a higher priority than supporting a bunch of avgas addled
> no-brain rev heads charging through the bush looking for x-box style
> thrills.


All a rally does is stir up some dust & dirt and if the roads are soft,
churn them up.

I fail to see how that's incompatible with water catchments? It's no
worse than a fleet of land barges doing the same, it just happens all
at once.

> The route we followed south of Jarrahdale Rd took us along Jarrah Rd,
> Redgum Rd and Bulldozer Rd. We passed three signs indicating that we
> were entering a dieback free forest and to brush down our vehicles.
> Strangely it doesnt appear the rally cars complied with the notice.


You'd probably be suprised. I used to rally in WA and we were pretty
careful with dieback rules. The organisers would have had to have got
clearance from CALM etc and followed the rules. Our rallies were
sometimes changed due to the road conditions making dieback spread a
greater risk. We had washdown points on entrances to dieback areas
etc. It's a lot more controlled than the friday night dickheads doing
drag races down the kwinana freeway.

> The route took the cars across two drinking water catchments - Wungong
> and Serpentine. Quite frankly rallying is incompatible with water
> catchment in this area of the hills and the rally lobbyists should
> start looking for their own privately owned sites.


1. No, I don't think it's incompatible with water catchment, and I'd
be interested to see why you think it is. It's just a bunch of cars
driving (fast) along a temporarily closed road. Whether you like the
sport or not (and you don't based on the perjorative language you're
using) is not grounds for removing another group's ability to use land
in a (relatively) harmless way.

2. Maybe we should only race bicycles on private land too? I can
think of dozens of reasons to make that a rule. How many MTB riders
dust down their bikes (really? you must be the *only* one ...). How
much damage to walking tracks do MTB racers do? It's not none, that's
for sure. At least rally cars stick mostly to roads!
 
Bleve heel and toed "All a rally does is stir up some dust & dirt and
if the roads are soft, churn them up. I fail to see how that's
incompatible with water catchments? It's no worse than a fleet of land
barges doing the same, it just happens all at once."

That is the problem really. A bunch of hard accelerating, braking,
lets face it hard-charging if you wanna get Darrell Eastlake, churning
up the dust, digging through the road surface in one specific event is
going to cause more water quality issues that one ute a day tootling
along expecting traffic in the opposite direction. Increased dust,
soil washes in on the rains from the thunderstorm on Saturday night,
increasing turbidity, water temperature, microbial activity.

Hey I boycott Melbourne for the F1 Grand Prix for the mess they have
made of Albert Park
 
gumby wrote:
> Bleve heel and toed "All a rally does is stir up some dust & dirt and
> if the roads are soft, churn them up. I fail to see how that's
> incompatible with water catchments? It's no worse than a fleet of land
> barges doing the same, it just happens all at once."
>
> That is the problem really. A bunch of hard accelerating, braking,
> lets face it hard-charging if you wanna get Darrell Eastlake, churning
> up the dust, digging through the road surface in one specific event is
> going to cause more water quality issues that one ute a day tootling
> along expecting traffic in the opposite direction. Increased dust,
> soil washes in on the rains from the thunderstorm on Saturday night,
> increasing turbidity, water temperature, microbial activity.


I don't disagree that it will churn up a lot of dust, but in context,
in order for it to affect the catchment in any significant way the
roads would have to be pretty close to the actual river or lake, as I'd
expect (guessing here) that while you'd get a bit more erosion, it
wouldn't be that significant overall and would average out over the
catchment area to be virtually nothing? It's not the perfect
environmentalist's activity, that's for sure, but it's not *that* bad,
and it's very infrequent. There'd be 3 or 4 rallies a year through
there, tops. I'd be suprised if it was that many.

> Hey I boycott Melbourne for the F1 Grand Prix for the mess they have
> made of Albert Park


Heh, fair enough. I don't go because it's expensive and boring :)

Albert Park would be an ace long crit course though ... mmm, no hills
....
 

Similar threads