Stockton Beach Access Protest 2nd Feb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

They do - through the Club system - work is quietly done behind the scenes without the need for grandstanding from 4wd mags looking for media covcerage.

Garry

---

Obviously this isnt really working then Garry, otherwise people wouldnt be up in arms over closures.

I am not for the grandstanding hence my undecided thoughts for certain figures, but they do make the headlines sometimes for good. However like me the average punter isnt in a club surely they could draw upon this crowd.

And again the average person may not want to be in a club or there is clubs out there not in the Association.

I for one would sign up for work on tracks if asked and probably the "Non Assoc" clubs would organise events to do such work as well.

Im sorry but the Association seems like a bit of the "Old mates club". Unless your are apart of the "In crowd" you dont deserve a voice on anything, which to me further pushes me away with my family.

Dont get me wrong they may do some good but since it is barely advertised who is to know what is being done and more importantly for who's benefit for the "few" or for all.

Dazza

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dazza67

Obviously this isnt really working then Garry, otherwise people wouldnt be up in arms over closures.

Dazza

---

Remember you cannot please all the people all the time - managers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Many of the areas closed are the direct result of unacceptable actions by some of the 4wd fratenity so naturally a lot of these people and considerate 4wders are going to be upset when areas are closed. My thoughts (based on anecdotal evidence) is that there are a lot of areas that are still open due to the Association working with NPWS.

Your correct many people may not want to join a 4wd club and that is fine but many are in Clubs and have an Association working on their behalf - good or bad. If the none clubbers want to have a voice in the NP management process then they need to join together and have that voice - and I accept the Roothy process is one way of doing this but one I disagree with. Protest will not work if it is the first action in a process to bring NPWs across to their way of thinking.

As I mentioned before - if 4wders want to keep areas open they need to know how the system works and use it to their advantage. The 4wd Association is but one player in that process and there is room for more players.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dazza67

Im sorry but the Association seems like a bit of the "Old mates club". Unless your are apart of the "In crowd" you dont deserve a voice on anything, which to me further pushes me away with my family.

---

I have to confess that I held a similar view until 2 years ago....I'd never understood the relevance of the association to what I was doing, until the VSI-50 stuff was on the table....so I started phoning round and talking about it with the people that were involved and was convinced I could do a better job of it - from that point it took me one club meeting to get appointed as a delegate, and then the next association meeting to get elected to run the technical discussions and sit on the exec committee. 80% of the committee is new this year - it isn't hard to challenge some of the entrenched view points.

At the end of the day, I don't think anyone wants to be in an association - we'd all much rather be using our free time to head out into the bush. The sad reality is that it has become a necessity to defend our ability to own, build and use offroad vehicles.

There are a lot of people worked up about track closures, but there is also a lot of misinformation out there that is standing in the way of a constructive discussion about the right way to fix the problem.

The Association has done a pretty good job of building good relationships with NPWS, Dept of Lands and State Forests and using those to ensure that the interests of 4wd owners are included in the planning processes of these govt departments - but it is just a lobby group, not a decision making body..and one of several lobby groups that are represented - sometimes the other groups are going to win a fight or two. If you go through the Plans of Management on the NPWS website as an example, then you will find numerous submissions made by the association over the years...in many cases there have only been one or two submissions, even for a popular highly accessed park like the Watagan's.

The govt departments are also constrained by their own legal, budget and policy environments which limits their operational flexibility to a large extent.

Once you get to a certain point in the discussion, it becomes clear that the civil servants can't help you and it becomes a political issue. Politics is sometimes described as the art of the possible, so if you want to get political support then you need to present an argument for an achievable solution....and I'm not sure that we as a group understand the problem yet, let alone the right solution.

There were some massive changes of ownership of public land in the mid-90's that seem to be part of the problem - 24 National Parks were created, and the state government stopped the land-tax based funding for the Aboriginal Councils in lieu of encouraging them to claim large parcels of Crown land for commercial gain and self sufficiency. The funding constraints of the NPWS and the commercial needs of the Land Councils are pretty powerful drivers for closing off access to what was once public land.

There is no easy answer here, in the short term we need to use the relationships that we have built to maximise that access available to us...but the longer term solution is going to be much more challenging.

Garry, so what is the correct process for a non-club 4x4er to oppose track closures? Is it when a draft management plan is released for each area? Does a draft management plan have to be produced before any track can be closed? I don't know much about draft management plans but from what I've heard if enough people oppose it then it can't go ahead? Is there any truth to this or can NPWS still erect a big dirty gate there anyway?

If you look at the Watagans it seems nobody really knew about the draft management plan that was released in 2010 or what to do about it, and most 4x4ers were suddenly surprised when the gates recently appeared 'overnight'. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the association or any other group advertised it to the wider 4WD community.

I may be wrong but it sounds like the 4WD association prefers to negotiate a compromise with NPWS rather than reject or completely oppose a management plan, which still results in track closures (although maybe not as many as it might have been). Roothy appears to be taking a harder stand by opposing all track closures and has a lot of supporters who think the same way.

At least we now have the opportunity to do something about Stockton when the draft management plan is released in August. So how does the system work and how does an individual go about opposing it? If NPWS holds a public meeting when the plan is released it would be a great time for 5000+ 4WD's to rally together again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasonedu

I would love to see the specific reference in Agenda 21 that leads you to this conclusion.

Agenda 21 is non-binding (i.e. optional) for starters. Reference to the actual text and not crack pot conspiracy theorists would be appreciated.

---

Is it part of Plan 9 From Outer Space? :o

Lets throw the "conspiracy theory" in the mix.
Shut the gate on all bar a few bushwalkers, over the next few years the tracks become so overgrown they are all but impossible to walk/ find and virtually no one goes there. Suddenly you have a prime site for development. Coal seam gas , urban sprawl, mining etc pick a use and look to a "shut off area" and check the time frame;).

O-D, I cannot specifically answer your question as people and circumstances are different. If you were really keen then you would try and get on one of the management advisory committees or lobby key players. For the average person it is to provide input when the management plan goes out for public comment and no - if enough people object it does not cancel the management plan or closures - it is something that has to be taken into account. The action has to be measured to have maximum impact at the right time and the right place.

However as has been shown the majority of people are not prepared to provide input at the appropriate time and then hoot and holla and say they were not consulted when decisions are made that they do not like.

Remember that in the case of National Parks, the purpose is not to create a place to go 4wding but a reserve for fauna, flora, the environment or whatever (it is in the NP legislation) - these things come first but hopefully 4wding is compatible and is allowed to continue but some times it is not.

As far as the Association negotiating a compromise - well I don't know but that is diplomacy - you need to know what you can win, what you will loose and what you you should die in a ditch for. Remember in a NP, the NPWS can just shut everything up if they wanted to and exclude vehicles all together but they rarely do.

Garry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

Lets throw the "conspiracy theory" in the mix.
Shut the gate on all bar a few bushwalkers, over the next few years the tracks become so overgrown they are all but impossible to walk/ find and virtually no one goes there. Suddenly you have a prime site for development. Coal seam gas , urban sprawl, mining etc pick a use and look to a "shut off area" and check the time frame;).

---

Can you provide any examples to back up this hypothesis? Looks like another way-out theory - you don't for a minute believe they are that clever do you?

Anyone up to anything wants their graft, payback, cut of the action as soon as possible - they are not waiting a generation.

Witness the last few weeks ICAC hearings.

Bob

What about this theory...

NPWS close trails to force vehicles to use the main forest roads and create designated camping areas on the main road. They say it is to protect the environment so the general public think it must be for the best and don't dispute it. Then they say the area is getting too much use and introduce a fee to reduce the number of visitors. They continue to increase fees while benefiting from having a smaller area to patrol with less liability. The designated camping areas also allow the rangers to find you easily when they turn up at your tent at 6am and rudely wake you to collect their fee (yes this actually happened!). ;)

Just a thought,

What if individuals were represented by the NRMA / RACQ or whatever they may be called in your state / territory.

These are estabilished, recognised peak bodys that understand the processes required to negotiate with the various government sectors & they could perhaps have a special 4wd member clasification separate to their road service.

50,000 members per area at say an annual fee of $20 = $1,000,000 per annum in the fighting fund in each state or territory.

Jim