Thread: Do your bit for(against!) track closures

I was just checking the NPWS website regarding closures before attending some national parks on the weekend(always a good idea), when I veered off into the draft management plan section(which usually gives me the Edgar Brits!)http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/...plans+by+title
These management plans are the means which the NPWS use to lock us out of what is ours to use.

Anyway, I think everyone should look at the list of plans, and see whether any of them relate to any National Parks people currently take advantage of, and if they do, write a letter voicing their opposition to the impending closures, and the restriction of access that WILL happen to ALL parks, when the current management plan for that park expires, and a new one is drafted. This is inevitable, as you can see from the following terminology used by the NPWS, but we should still voice our opposition;

This is the scariest-
The impact of mechanised activities (especially trail bike riding) is argued as being inconsistent with NP&WAct and
the identified intrinsic values. This planning exercise is " not about pleasing as many people as possible, or upsetting
as few as possible. It’s about seeking to accommodate reasonable expectations within the legislative framework"
(514)
- Horseriding, walking and cycling considered consistent with the legislation (514)

when you consider that-
under legislation all
registered vehicles are permitted on these roads and it is not possible to discriminate between vehicle types (eg 4WD
versus 2WD vehicle).-and trail bikes!!,
.

ROAD NETWORK, Non-Negotiables

- Opposition to public access to roads between wilderness areas "within corridors", "as this results in fragmentation of
otherwise continuous declared wilderness and an excessive number of park traverses, especially by 4wd's". (343)
- Opposition to roads that traverse parks and policy that enables this with a preferred policy position of short and
peripheral roads/trails.(343)
- The existence of and proposal for continuation of roads that are accessible by 4WD or trail bikes only is contrary to
NPWS policy of "no special provision for 4WD's or trail bikes" (343)

Opposition to roads that traverse parks and policy that enables this, with a preferred policy position of short, 2WD
and peripheral roads/trails.

and can you beleive this;

Suggests that the plan should consider social impacts and inappropriate behaviour which may be associated with
4WD and trail bike activity: "There remains a small number of aggressive; hostile 4W drivers and motor bike riders
who deeply resent being locked out of Park areas... They often indulge themselves in "scaring the greenies" when
they come across bushwalkers; particularly women". (I know I ALWAYS swerve towards those pesky female bushwalkers!!Un-believable!Literally!Sounds like a Scruby-ism!)(671). Suggests that for this reason, amongst others, the planrestricts 4WD access and activity.

Providing information on current use/regional recreational opportunities does not establish or imply use rights for
future uses should there be a change in land tenure or protected management status. For example, if a regional map
shows 4WD trails in a State Forest, this does not guarantee that these trails will remain if the State Forest became a
National Park.
Interestingly, when it comes to horses,
- Horse Riding is an excellent family activity, opportunity for education about cultural heritage and responsible use of
National Parks (477).

Prohibition of horses from National Parks is contrary to adopted NPWS policy. The plan proposes that horseriding be
permitted on defined tracks only therefore limiting potential impacts on endemic or threatened species.

Horse riders generally appreciate natural and cultural heritage and intrinsic values desiring only to use existing
tracks and not to bush bash in sensitive areas (444).

Anyway it goes on and on, and the cards are definately stacked against us! But go there and check out what is about to be closed, such as the "inappropriate" trails leading to the beach in tha Ben Boyd NP on the south coast.
I've had my rant , but don't feel much better. We need to have 4wdving legislated as being "consistent with National Parks policy", or we will keep getting forced out of these areas, or is that already a fait accommpli??
Note that if anything, is not specificly noted as allowed in a draft management plan, it is then, by its absence, automatically prohibited!

Half the problem is that the people who would seek to close these areas seem to be the ones who have all the time in the world to complain about these things, rather than being productive in life.