Harry de Walker wrote:The Berowra Valley Plan of Management and Police guidelines make it very clear that no walkers or bikers are permitted within the safety zone of the rifle range. What a sensible idea. There is link to the PoM document earlier on in this thread - if you haven't, then go read it and become informed.
I just read it, and I do not feel better informed. I accept that I may have missed the information to which you allude. Could you please show me where in the document it is made clear that no walkers or bikers are permitted within the safety zone of the rifle range?
Harry de Walker wrote:This means no traveling along Quarry Rd trail from not long after Pogsons Trig to the switchback just above Tunks Ridge camping ground - verboten.
Same verboten with the trail from Steele Bridge to Stewart St, it too enters the safety zone of the rifle range as well.
Clear as what on every map I have seen.
In doing so, it appears to leave the national park by crossing its boundaries into an area leased (according to the PoM) to the rifle range operators. It would seem likely to me, therefore, that use of the the sections of trail to which you refer could not be prohibited by the PoM, as they fall outside its boundaries, and outside the bailiwick of NPWS.
Harry de Walker wrote:So to those who trespass into these prohibited areas why continue to put yourself (or your kids) at risk of one in the head, just because arrogance outweighs good sense?
If you cannot (or don't care) to inform yourself of what is legal and what is not by reading a map and the Plan of Management, then you might as well stay at home because you are obviously a risk to yourself and the rest of us who stick to the approved trails and do the right thing by everyone.
See, I get a bit grumpy when people throw words like 'trespass', 'prohibited' and '[il]legal' around without clearly specifying the basis for their beliefs. While it might well be a Good Idea (TM) to avoid those areas, and there may well be statutory instruments prohibiting their use by bushwalkers, I fail to see that the PoM is one such document.
I think you err in ascribing to arrogance the tendency of people in NSW to ignore authorities' safety pronouncements. Rather, I think, we have become habituated to authorities using safety as a pretext. I don't think it's arrogant to be sceptical about suggestions that, in NSW (it may be different elsewhere,) the government acts in the best interests of the people. I think it's a scepticism founded on 200 years' history of very poor government.
Harry de Walker wrote:I'll make a prediction... The heavy hand will be applied because of the few idiots and be sure more signs and gates could be installed as a result.
I hope you're mistaken in your prediction, but offer no opinion as to probabilities.
Harry de Walker wrote:Can't really whinge when you consider that the rifle range has been where it is way long before anyone thought to land-bank crown land into 'parks', which BTW one thinks is not such a bad thing... but lunatic bikers on trails and tracks, only tears will result.
No whinging from me. I would not recommend anyone cross the range, because it may not be a good idea, it may expose them to risk.
My personal preference is that people have accurate and detailed information upon which to base their decisions and assess their risks. I do not think that waving around threats of sanctions according to law really suffices. If it's a bad idea, it's a bad idea whether or not there is law forbidding it, if there is law forbidding it then the law should be knowable to all, if it's a bad idea then the reasoning should be available to all.