Hunting in NSW National Parks, expect 4WD,Trail Bikes soon

Mon 11 Jun, 2012 8:19 am

After the Shooters and Fishers Party gets the hunting in NSW National Parks through, their next objective is for Four Wheel Drives and Motorcycles to have open access to all of the NSW National Parks roads.

This is from the Shooters and Fishers Party, Position Statement and Action Plan on Fair Recreational Access, part (c) Partnering with Four Wheel Driving,

• We will work with Four Wheel Drive NSW and ACT Inc. to secure access to public and private lands for responsible 4WD and AWD touring.

• Similarly, we will support the Motor Cycle Council of NSW and its initiatives for responsible and safe on-road and off-road motor cycle use.

If you want to read more read the Shooters and Fishers Party, Position Statement and Action Plan on Fair Recreational Access.

Tony

Wed 13 Jun, 2012 7:27 pm

Roads? Or do they mean all the Fire Trails as well?
I've already had a few walks in the Pilot Wilderness ruined by mobs on trail bikes and ATVs careering all over the place.

Fri 20 Jul, 2012 10:27 pm

We now have an Upper house enquiry into the management of public land in NSW. I wonder what the Government want to sell next?

http://www.npansw.org.au/index.php/comp ... -2012.html

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 8:17 am

Shock, Horror....a propsal to allow "the general public" to access public land.

Once again NSW seems quite unique in not allowing at least seasonal vehicle-based access to lots of public land in their NP's despite a significant network of tracks albeit marked "management vehicles only". While I don't like to harp-on about what we have in Victoria...it is none-the-less worthwhile pointing out that the vast majority of vehicle tracks in our NP's and SF's are open to the general public most of the year with some subject to seasonal road closures in the winter due to them being in areas prone to poor weather, high rivers or subject to snow dumps. So when conditions are suitable the public are able to drive their 4WD's or ride their road-registered trail bikes on these roads. It's called "multi-use" and allows people who are not inclined or unable to walk into these areas to still be able to access at least some of the country and appreicate it. Some Victorian NP's also have Wilderness areas declared which have no vehicle trails and any pre-existing tracks have been closed and revegitated...so these are strictly "walk-in" areas only however the rest of our NP's have reasonable vehicle access trails which are accessable generally from November thru to mid-June when our seasonal road closures come into effect. Interesting that NSW seems to have adopted the "lock it up and look at it" approach to their NP's which I feel is short-changing the public to a fair degree and depriving many from visiting and appreciating these areas in more depth.

I see this move by the Shooters & Fishers Party as a positive one which would allow an improvement in access to SOME areas of NSW Parks via their network of well-maintained MVO roads and tracks.....after all public land is the public's land. Certainly there should be some serious consideration given to not allowing vehicles on some tracks into environmentally sensistive areas or close some tracks seasonally during the winter etc but I cannot see any logical reason to shut-off vast amounts of country if there are reasonable track networks present that could be used to allow more people to access and appreciate these areas at certain times of the year.

This proposal will in no way remove the "remote experience" aspect of walking in NSW Parks as obviously vehicular access will be restricted to formed roads and fire trails and not walking tracks or ill-defined cross-country routes into remoter locations. In fact the proposal could give walkers with 4WD's (some walkers do have 4WD's I suspect) the opportunity to get deeper into these Parks in their 4WD via a track or fire trail before heading off exploring some new country....not a bad thing in my view. Cheers

sambar358

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 12:34 pm

sambar358 wrote:Shock, Horror....a propsal to allow "the general public" to access public land.

Of course the public already has access to public land...on foot...I have seen trail bikes in National Parks...on fire trails AND on walking tracks! But then again, 10 or 15 years ago I myself was quite annoyed when they banned mountain biking almost everywhere in NPs except fire trails...but now I am older and wiser...and prefer walking anyway...

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 1:32 pm

Petropus....more correctly "some" of the public have access to public lands "on foot." But obviously this removes the opportunity for access to public land for a significant number of the general population who are likely just ordinary well-behaved & law-abiding citizens who of course also contribute to the upkeep of that public land via their taxes. It's a bit of a cop-out for opponents to this concept to demonize those who would like to access public land other than by walking as potential environmental vandals. If managed properly seasonal vehicular access to specific areas of suitable public land including National Parks is not (in my view) an unreasonable concept to embrace. Works just fine down here in Victoria in our ANP and most public land as I stated in my previous post......and obviously there's still plenty of remote locations available for those who like to get off the beaten track and experience the true wilderness of the mountains.

And what do "walkers" do when they can no longer walk into their favourite spots due to age, injury or wonky knees ? If it were me I'd still love to get out into those places that I used to visit when younger and fitter and if that meant going by 4WD and just being there and soaking it all up once again then that'd be far better (for me) than sitting and home longing for the "good old days" to return. Plenty of ordinary people are incapable for various reason of walking into our wild areas but I'm sure many would jump at the chance of driving somewhere a little remote, day-tripping or camping and enjoying the ambience of these locations....can't see much wrong with that really. Cheers

sambar358

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 1:52 pm

Fair enough sambar, but I am sure you are aware of the concept of 'Tragedy of the commons' -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
When I used to be an obsessive mountain biker, who also happened to bushwalk, I saw the damage that both sides did. That didn't want me to stop walking or mountain biking. I know people who are very much against mountain biking on anything other than fire trails. I generally defend mountain bikers, but one of the reasons the activity got banned in many areas was the amount of veg clearing for illegal track making in the bush. I suppose the difference between say, a mountain biker and a bushwalker is that bushwalkers don't really need to clear a track when they go off track. I can see why mountain biking got banned on anything other than fire trails in most parks.
I personally don't have as much problem with four wheel drives on a fire trail in a national park, but trail bikes are a different matter all together. But NSW isn't having all the fun opening up their NPs. The new Qld gov is starting to make worrying statements that will make hunting, trail bikes, 4wds and the like seem like nothing, because there are rumblings about logging in NPs, plus the possibility of coal seam gas exploration, removal of signs with the words 'conservation' etc on our public land...watch this space...

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 2:33 pm

And what do "walkers" do when they can no longer walk into their favourite spots due to age, injury or wonky knees ?

Many take to exploring the kinds of places they used to ignore on their rush to get out to the remoter areas when they were young. And they are often delightfully surprised at how much they find of interest there. Our parks are full of such places accessible to all. In my case I wouldn't mind getting back out to the Wild Dogs like I used to. But in my condition there is no way. I might have a chance if I could drive beyond the locked gate on the service road to Medlow Gap. But why when there are so many other options more suitable to my likes? Every one of us will end up too old or too sick to walk. Some of us are too poor to own a 4WDrive on top of it, so we can all claim some sort of disadvantage. Roads are everywhere. I don't think 4WDrive and trail bike enthusiasts have anything to complain about. The few restrictions they find in our parks are invariably well considered by our park managers for good reasons.

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 4:28 pm

sambar358 wrote: It's a bit of a cop-out for opponents to this concept to demonize those who would like to access public land other than by walking as potential environmental vandals.

The issue is the appropriate use of National Parks. We all enjoy conditional access to, and reasonable use of, this public land if we chose to do so. There is of course plenty of State Forest, Crown estate, and private land in NSW, where activities have been less regulated and greater freedom is enjoyed (consistent with its purpose).

I am interested that any questioning of the appropriateness of activities such as recreational hunting, logging, four-wheel driving, grazing, development, or trail-bike riding within National Parks (no matter how politely raised) seems to be met with extreme sensitivity and defensiveness, and then allegations of 'demonisation', ignorance, hysteria, extremism, and even 'racism', by proponents of such activities (which is just playing the man and not the ball). It is reminiscent of the tactics of the political right in the so called 'culture wars' with allegations of 'elitism' aimed that those that disagree with the self appointed defenders of the 'common man'.

Cheers

Last edited by maddog on Sun 22 Jul, 2012 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

Sat 21 Jul, 2012 10:52 pm

Why is the "appreciation" of National Parks by those "not inclined" to bushwalk a priority when their very presence in or on vehicles will rapidly erode and pollute the environment they purport to appreciate? I am not inclined to rockclimb but I do not expect a lift to be constructed to take me to the top of walls so I too can appreciate the view climbers have. Almost everyone can bushwalk. If they're not inclined, that's their loss. I'm not inclined to breathe carbon monoxide when walking in the bush. Cars and bikes are for transportation convenience and do not belong in National Parks.

Sun 22 Jul, 2012 8:59 am

Wolfix wrote:I'm not inclined to breathe carbon monoxide when walking in the bush. Cars and bikes are for transportation convenience and do not belong in National Parks.

+1
I can't climb mountains but don't expect to be carried/ferried/elevated to the top simply because I have a 'right' to be there. It's up to me to get there, I simply have the right to try.

Sun 22 Jul, 2012 9:27 am

As a former active member of two four-wheel drive clubs, I am quite familiar with 'access for all' argument that has been espoused for well over 20 years. The clubs generally hypocritically support the 'tread lightly' ethos whilst also actively running moderate/hard trips. Whilst never being a hard-core off-roader myself, I've seen the damage that four-wheel drives and particularly trail-bikes can cause. Not all members are of the hard-core variety, most would fit into the tourer category.

There has been a significant quantity of mixed-use land on the fringes of National Parks closed up in the last 20 years and I don't think all of these areas should have been. From a management perspective the cheapest approach has been adopted, which is basically to install locked gates. These 'managed' areas are areas that four-wheel drive clubs (including bushwalking clubs) have formerly enjoyed for car-based camping / recreation.

My current view is that sensitive areas should be closed where there is a legitimate reason. Other areas on the fringes of National Parks should be managed - perhaps with more active management than a locked gate. One of the problems is that management costs money. Maybe a permit-based system is needed for some of these areas, where visitors book to visit an area at a specific time (helping to prevent overuse). This should be straight-forward for parks to administer with modern web-based technologies.

Sun 22 Jul, 2012 10:05 am

I remember a walking track through a national park years ago that was opened to 4WDrive access so that "everyone" could see the beautiful forest not just the hardy few. The track crossed several creeks at the side of each was a magical little campsite tucked neatly into the bush. Within two years of the new track opening all the campsites had been converted into messy turning circles for 4WDrives, all the little side track junctions down to points of interest became car parks and heads of further intrusion by vehicles pushing their way in. Bollards were insatalled but these were simply got around by driving down the bed of the creek. And the local wildlife became road kill. Once the campsites were wrecked and walkers had to watch out for passing vehicles they simply stopped using the trail, even the few campsites that had not been ruined by 4WDrives fell into disuse, so the net effect was that, despite the great rise in usage of the track, the opportunity to experience the real beauty and tranquility of the place as it was was lost to all.

Sun 22 Jul, 2012 10:18 am

Bushwalking and park visitors don't help the environment, their support and funding does (in part..if anything..). While I don't think these things (hunting/4wd) are desirable in parks their support and funding definitely would be. I see the left as far more vocal, sensitive and blinkered m'dog, just an observation. Perhaps I'd agree though.. take it one step further.. no guide books, no maps, no magic buttons, no track maintenance, huts or park staff to make access easier for anyone. :lol:

Unfortunately, no funding, no support, no parks. Like hunting, vehicle access will just keep bringing up stories of dramatic extremes. I suspect Tony has seen the epic threads on US sites and knows what will happen here..

Sun 22 Jul, 2012 11:25 am

Nuts wrote:Bushwalking and park visitors don't help the environment, their support and funding does. While I don't think these things (hunting/4wd) are desirable in parks their support and funding definitely would be. I see the left as far more vocal, sensitive and blinkered m'dog, just an observation. Perhaps I'd agree though.. take it one step further i'd say.. no guide books, no maps, no magic buttons, no track maintenance, huts or park staff to make access easier for anyone. Unfortunately, no funding, no support, no parks. Like hunting, vehicle access will just keep bring up stories of dramatic extremes. I suspect Tony has seen the epic threads on US sites and knows what will happen here..

Having been meaningfully employed for the last decade or so in land management (clearing), involving such marvels of the modern world as bulldozers, excavators, chainsaws, mega-mulchers, and broad scale herbicide application, and as a keen bushwalker and amateur ecological theorist, I can reassure you that there is very little relative damage is caused by merely walking through the bush (or even engaging in a little unauthorised trail-blazing to facilitate access). Whatever damage is caused by such low impact activities (even where there is intense use), it is less significant than the necessary and natural disturbance to an ecosystem caused by a mild storm, or the activities of native animals. So I agree with you Nuts, that the precious attitude of ideologically correct environmentalists has alienated many potential users of National Parks. This would include such things as the deliberate obstruction of unsealed roads that prevents reasonable to and from access by four-wheel drives (for walkers, campers, photographers, the young, aged and infirm, etc), and the closing of established walking tracks, all in the name of conservation. This is no doubt one factor that has left the Parks vulnerable to the type of exploitation that the Shooters and others seem to be keen to support.

So while I am open to the suggestion that we now have too many National Parks (including many old State Forests and some native plantations of minimal conservation value), and that many of these areas should be selectively rebadged to allow for a wider variety of recreational activities, this is not the process we have unfolding here. What we have in NSW is a situation where (with ideological motivation), the whole legal framework of environmental management and appropriate environmental zoning is under attack by political opportunists, the regulators (OE&H) are being gutted, the defenders of the status quo are being attacked with ad hominem, and the 'conservation' merits and 'fair access' concerns of the proposed new policies and their backers are illusory (a fantasy). In this environment, I am highly sceptical that the end result will be sound policy.

Cheers

Last edited by maddog on Sun 22 Jul, 2012 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sun 22 Jul, 2012 11:49 am

This policy isn't worth much other than as a political football? These park access issues seem tailor made for politics?
There was hope for the wilderness act but perhaps re-categorising land use could lead to a wider inclusion of the best attributes of hunting et al... their money and support.. Maybe the chance (conservation in mind) to have positive input into just where and when hunters and other users can operate could lead to a sound realistic future for parks? Perhaps i'm dreamin'

Good post maddog.

Mon 23 Jul, 2012 9:17 am

In the 1920's and 30's walkers started realising they were losing their tracks and trails to motor cars, and that this was happening nowhere faster than in the existing national parks of the day. Their reaction to this was the beginning of the contemporary national parks and wilderness (roadless) areas movement. This is the very reason we have a subject like national park management to argue over today. Governments have responded to the persistent demands of motorists for road access with vast sums of money. What is spent on maintaining natural areas for walkers and wildlife is chicken feed in comparison.

Tue 24 Jul, 2012 8:18 pm

Personally, I am all for National Parks being open to 4WD, Trail Bikes etc even hunting in a responsible way. Parks are for the people to recreate and enjoy and for preservation. What makes walkers that much better than the other uses?

I don't think I can name a track that I like to walk that could be traversed by a motorbike or 4x4. Different tracks mostly.

Unfortunately however there are some real cowboys in all of these pastimes and cowboys with utes and guns can do more damage than cowboys with boots and backpacks. Management approaches are important as is the community within these interests encouraging better practices. Things are changing - trailbike riders i see on approach trails these days seem to be well prepared, sensible and polite when 20yrs ago they would try to spray you with mud. Not that long ago walkers were chopping out campsites, starting big fires and burning and bashing rubish. Some campsites only used by walkers used to look like landfills - complete with toilet paper sticking out of the refuse.

Serious fisherman these days mostly catch and release and chose carefully what they take home (if anything at all). Some hunters are the great advocates of conservation and wilderness area management. I actually think walkers have much in common with climbers, hunters, mountain bikers, 4WDs etc in needing to advocate that wilderness areas are as much for people to enjoy as for preservation. Encouraging the presence of the responsible end of these groups may actually make wilderness areas less attractive to the riff-raff. For example look at the way serious fisherman clamor to dob in people taking undersize fish, using gill nets etc.

There is a mindset out there that all people in parks and wilderness areas are a hindrance and would be better kept out - we are all in the same boat trying to prove this wrong.

Thu 02 Aug, 2012 7:35 pm

sambar358 wrote:This proposal will in no way remove the "remote experience" aspect of walking in NSW Parks as obviously vehicular access will be restricted to formed roads and fire trails and not walking tracks or ill-defined cross-country routes into remoter locations. In fact the proposal could give walkers with 4WD's (some walkers do have 4WD's I suspect) the opportunity to get deeper into these Parks in their 4WD via a track or fire trail before heading off exploring some new country....not a bad thing in my view. Cheers

Most of the 'walking' tracks in the Snowies are Fire Trails - MVOs, in fact. It's either vehicle tracks or cross-country. Thanks, but if I'm going to track walk up there, I'd rather not have to spend my whole time dodging 4WDeres and trail bikers - well, no more than the illegal gatecrashers I already see there.

Sat 04 Aug, 2012 10:58 am

My greatest concern is that the funding for regulation isn't there. O'Farrel has slashed more NPWS jobs where there were already too few Rangers to actively manage their parks. If this is to happen we will need an enormous injection of funding to NPWS to properly police the parks as I know full well that social policing is dead in Australia now.

Sat 04 Aug, 2012 11:00 am

I also think there are walking tracks that should be closed because of erosion. The Coast Track Bundeena to Otford has some devastating erosion in sections and i felt that I really shouldn't have been walking there.

Mon 06 Aug, 2012 3:53 pm

sambar358 wrote:Petropus....more correctly "some" of the public have access to public lands "on foot." But obviously this removes the opportunity for access to public land for a significant number of the general population who are likely just ordinary well-behaved & law-abiding citizens who of course also contribute to the upkeep of that public land via their taxes. ... If managed properly seasonal vehicular access to specific areas of suitable public land including National Parks is not (in my view) an unreasonable concept to embrace.
sambar358

That is a very real park management question, Sambar. Where do you build the easy to get to carpark for significant numbers of people and start the four wheel drive track and "remove the opportunity for access for a significant number"? Where do you end the four wheel drive track and start the walking track and limit the access even further?

Wed 08 Aug, 2012 6:43 pm

Earwig wrote:
sambar358 wrote:Petropus....more correctly "some" of the public have access to public lands "on foot." But obviously this removes the opportunity for access to public land for a significant number of the general population who are likely just ordinary well-behaved & law-abiding citizens who of course also contribute to the upkeep of that public land via their taxes. ... If managed properly seasonal vehicular access to specific areas of suitable public land including National Parks is not (in my view) an unreasonable concept to embrace.
sambar358

That is a very real park management question, Sambar. Where do you build the easy to get to carpark for significant numbers of people and start the four wheel drive track and "remove the opportunity for access for a significant number"? Where do you end the four wheel drive track and start the walking track and limit the access even further?

Then you have the issue that not everyone can afford to run a 4WD. So you'd have to upgrade and/or seal the roads to really give people access. etc etc etc
It's never-ending once you start down that track (pun intended). People just have to learn to accept that there are places that can't cope with certain types of access for more than very limited numbers.

Wed 15 Aug, 2012 9:32 pm

With the hunting you soon should expect "hunting and killing of game birds and other game animals", and the repeal of the Native Vegetation Act. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/premier-must-rule-out-duck-hunting-oppn/story-e6frf7kf-1226450326753

Wed 15 Aug, 2012 10:17 pm

"With the hunting you soon should expect "hunting and killing of game birds and other game animals", and the repeal of the Native Vegetation Act."

Greenie, NSW already has an unoffical "Duck Season". Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, Section 120, Gamebirds Protection Bill 1995, I can "Harm" (kill) as many ducks as the the farmer has a permit for. This mainly occurs during the rice growing season, I'm not restricted to say 10 birds a day as in Victoria, but so long as I shoot over crops and artificially constructed waterbodies I can harm as many ducks as the farmers permit allows me too, this is a lot more than 10 per day.

Hunting in NSW National Parks, expect 4WD,Trail Bikes soon

Forum rules