Bushwalk Australia

Hi,

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the NPWS have put forward what looks like a proposal to introduce horse riding to many area throughout the Blue Mountains. These include areas within Blue Mountains, Capertee, Kanangra-Boyd, Wollemi and Gardens of Stone National Parks, along with the Jenolan Karst Conservation Reserve.

Action items include permitting access to certain management and bridle trails, creating "shared use" trails for riders and walkers, and the establishment of new bridle trails.

The relevant document can be found here - http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resou ... MRPlan.pdf

My question is, what sort of impact will there be on bushwalkers who use these areas?

The smell of horseshit is going to replace the ever present scent of eucalypt. Plus there will be a lot more erosion and degradation of tracks (sorry, Fire Trails).

Meh. Seems to be mostly about letting horses use existing dirt roads. Apart from minor inconveniences I don't see much negative impact to bushwalkers.

Alex,

This hasn't gone unnoticed:
http://www.bluemountains.org.au/documents/submissions/bs120706_horse_riding.pdf
http://www.npansw.org.au/index.php/campaigns/park-protection/horse-riding-in-national-parks
http://www.npaact.org.au/res/File/2012/NPA%20ACT%20Horse%20Riding%20in%20NSW%20Final.pdf
https://www.colongwilderness.org.au/files/pages/eia_brief_on_riding_in_declared_wilderness_areas.pdf

jonnosan wrote:Meh. Seems to be mostly about letting horses use existing dirt roads. Apart from minor inconveniences I don't see much negative impact to bushwalkers.

Thin edge of the wedge. Next the motorbike/4x4 crowd will want in and then the hunters will call for greater access.

Cheers,
Michael.

Allchin09 wrote:
My question is, what sort of impact will there be on bushwalkers who use these areas?

Shouldn't be any impact on us unless bushwalkers somehow feel above those on horseback. What gives us any more right? It's not like they'll be galloping up Mt Cloudmaker.

There's a fairly big difference between a horse and a motorbike.

DarrenM wrote:It's not like they'll be galloping up Mt Cloudmaker.

No, but according to the original document, they might be galloping along Mailes Ridge, which is currently a narrow and rocky foot track for walkers only.

north-north-west wrote:The smell of horseshit is going to replace the ever present scent of eucalypt. Plus there will be a lot more erosion and degradation of tracks (sorry, Fire Trails).

They'd surely have to wear diapers? At least horses can carry out everythingI suppose..

If they can have horses I want one of these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSWlht1 ... ture=share

tom_brennan wrote:

DarrenM wrote:It's not like they'll be galloping up Mt Cloudmaker.

No, but according to the original document, they might be galloping along Mailes Ridge, which is currently a narrow and rocky foot track for walkers only.

Yes, although they would create a usable track. I do understand where you're coming from though Tom.
In their own words from the document...

Create “shared use” trails between horse riders and walkers:

Mailes Ridge Route (no exit to Colo Meroo)
Wollemi National Park
Requires endorsement of South East Wollemi Horse Riding Management Plan

I wonder if this will be a prelude to allowing dogs on leads in the parks?

I wonder how much this will stir up the brumby population?

Hey Darren, there are some major differences between a horse and a motorbike but I wouldn't like to be hit by either at pace!!

DarrenM wrote:
Shouldn't be any impact on us unless bushwalkers somehow feel above those on horseback. What gives us any more right? It's not like they'll be galloping up Mt Cloudmaker.

There's a fairly big difference between a horse and a motorbike.

A minimal difference if one's philosophy is that nature is there to be conquered. The mythology associated with going on horseback appeals to some. The extra horsepower of motorcycles lacks the mythology but makes up for it in the machismo department. Concern about potential environmental damage is probably not a high priority for most users of either mode of transport.

What gives bushwalkers more so-called "rights"? Nothing substantive. But consider why parks were established a century or so ago. The aim was to protect and preserve native flora and fauna. Walking constitutes a far lesser threat to that aim than does travel by any other means. It's not an issue of "rights", it is a question of practicalities.

peregrinator wrote:What gives bushwalkers more so-called "rights"? Nothing substantive. But consider why parks were established a century or so ago. The aim was to protect and preserve native flora and fauna. Walking constitutes a far lesser threat to that aim than does travel by any other means. It's not an issue of "rights", it is a question of practicalities.

...and just to put the lost context back in place....in reply to the question Alex had originally asked. It had nothing to do with my thoughts or commitment to flora and fauna.

DarrenM wrote:

Allchin09 wrote:
My question is, what sort of impact will there be on bushwalkers who use these areas?

Shouldn't be any impact on us unless bushwalkers somehow feel above those on horseback. What gives us any more right? It's not like they'll be galloping up Mt Cloudmaker.

There's a fairly big difference between a horse and a motorbike.

Strange change. When did horse riding become so popular to warrant this? I'll be more sympathetic to kangaroo/emu riding, but not non-native horse riding.

News item on the ABC websiite: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-09/conservationists-slam-horseriding-trial-in-nsw-wilderness-areas/5379102

There seems to be some confusion about whether this is about declared wilderness areas or not. The doc Allchin09 linked to was this about allowing horses on existing roads in national parks, and it states declared wilderness areas are explicitly excluded. The article michael_p linked to talks about horse riding within declared wilderness areas. It's not clear to me though whether this is people applying a "thin edge of the wedge...slippery slope... give an inch and they'll take a mile" approach.

Some interesting thought being shared. I was mainly concerned as Darren said about the direct impacts on bushwalkers (as this is a bushwalking forum) but I am also well aware of the environmental impacts which are associated with horse riding in unsuitable areas.

I would be interested to know where the funding for this proposal is coming from. I know that the creation of new track, and their maintenance can be very expensive, and it seems an odd thing to spend for the NPWS to spend money on considering that they are always 'under funded'.

Finally, whilst the document I posted does not include any Wilderness areas (as far as I know - though the Jenolan Karst proposal is of some concern), the article linked by Michal_P refers to a separate issue of horse riding being trialled with the support of Minister Parker, within declared Wilderness areas. This is completely contradictory to the values of Wilderness, and I believe totally inappropriate.

Allchin09 wrote:Some interesting thought being shared. I was mainly concerned as Darren said about the direct impacts on bushwalkers (as this is a bushwalking forum) but I am also well aware of the environmental impacts which are associated with horse riding in unsuitable areas.

DarrenM also refers to this in an earlier post and suggests that I have taken the discussion out of context. I'm sorry that I appear to be ignoring the immediate context of DarrenM's statement, but I am referring to the broader context. I.e., I don't believe that "impacts on bushwalkers" can be separated from "environmental impacts".

I don't want to walk in areas that have been environmentally damaged. I try to choose walking destinations that feature unspoilt country. Isn't that what all bushwalkers would prefer? Not always possible, I know, but the least we can do is hang on to what we've got. If all of the bush was degraded, I'd save time and money and just walk around the Botanical Gardens instead! (Well, perhaps not if I lived in Sydney and the recent plans to vandalise that area go ahead.)

The first national park in Australia was not created to “protect and preserve native flora and fauna”. It was created for public recreation. Hence the large cleared areas, buildings and non-native flora and fauna in the Royal. I remember not that long ago that the NSW Parks slogan was “Parks are for People”. Even today preserving natural eco-systems, while being the most important, is not the only reason for the existence of national parks.

For many years access to parks has been subject to lobbying from self interest groups; some more successful than others. Hence we have ridiculous situations like that where walkers can camp overnight on the Nattai, yet push bike riders can’t ride for a few hours on roads that aren’t within kilometres of the river. And that’s before we get to what mining companies may be doing in or under BMNP.

I don’t have a clue whether horses on tracks are an environmental disaster or not. What I do find disappointing however is that whenever anybody else wants access to a national park, bushwalkers, or perhaps more accurately those claiming to represent them, seem to automatically oppose it.

The National Parks act on 1974 lists the purpose of the land
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 7/s2a.html

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 - SECT 2A

Objects of Act
2A Objects of Act

(1) The objects of this Act are as follows:
(a) the conservation of nature, including, but not limited to, the conservation of:
(i) habitat, ecosystems and ecosystem processes, and
(ii) biological diversity at the community, species and genetic levels, and
(iii) landforms of significance, including geological features and processes, and
(iv) landscapes and natural features of significance including wilderness and wild rivers,
(b) the conservation of objects, places or features (including biological diversity) of cultural value within the landscape, including, but not limited to:
(i) places, objects and features of significance to Aboriginal people, and
(ii) places of social value to the people of New South Wales, and
(iii) places of historic, architectural or scientific significance,
(c) fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation,
(d) providing for the management of land reserved under this Act in accordance with the management principles applicable for each type of reservation.
(2) The objects of this Act are to be achieved by applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
(3) In carrying out functions under this Act, the Minister, the Director-General and the Service are to give effect to the following:
(a) the objects of this Act,
(b) the public interest in the protection of the values for which land is reserved under this Act and the appropriate management of those lands.


So this is the purpose they where created for in my book.
It is point 1c) "fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation"
The question I have is an activity that fulfills point 1c) but cuts against other points - should it be allowed in the park.
This is true for bushwalking were walking is not permitted in some ares because of the particularly sensitive ecosystems.

I believe national parks are not primary created for our recreation but for protecting native biodiversity.
Encouraging low impact visits helps protect the parks politically -- people know and love these lands will spend time fighting for their ongoing protection.
But if the community mind shifts to thinking about NP land as been primarily about recreation then the political pressure to preserve biodiversity will completely disappear.

If parks are about recreation then anything that is fun should be permitted. Surely we can protect just 10% of our state as an ark for native biodiversity - we still have 90% for work and play.

Matt

peregrinator wrote:
I don't believe that "impacts on bushwalkers" can be separated from "environmental impacts".

I can't really disagree peregrinator....I get it and no malice intended mate.

At the risk of seeming disinterested in the environment, (once again) I will never stop bushwalking, mountain biking, trail running, backcountry snowboarding, packrafting, canyoning etc because people think that you shouldn't partake in activities that appear to be a pursuit of self or damaging to the environment. It can be...but it's also a manageable situation IMO. I hate elitism in the guise of eco warrior.

[quote="Grabeach"]The first national park in Australia was not created to “protect and preserve native flora and fauna”. It was created for public recreation. If you're referring to the (Royal) National Park you only have to read the introduction to the first guide book published in the 1880's to see that the protection of native wildlife was a clearly stated intention from the beginning. The fact is that the Park Trust, accountable only to ignorant politicians, abused its own charter, but it was certainly not created solely for public recreation.

juxtaposer; I simply gave a two line summary of what's written in the "Royal National Park - History since colonialisation - The creation of Australia's first national park" section of the Office of Environment & Heritage NSW NPWS website.

To save anyone looking it up:-
"In its early days, the park didn't quite fit today's ideas of what a conservation reserve should be. The Victorian era was in full swing, and conservation was a relatively novel concept.
In fact people, rather than native plants and animals, were the first priority. The Royal was created as the 'lungs' of Sydney; a place where Sydneysiders could enjoy themselves in a natural environment. But in many cases it was the soft countryside of Mother England - not the rugged Australian bush - that city residents sought.
Mudflats and mangroves were replaced with grassed parklands, and some 3700 ornamental trees were planted. Buildings, roads and exotic landscaped gardens were all installed. Areas were set aside for the 'acclimatisation' of exotic animals for farming in Australia. Native trees were extensively logged. Military exercises were carried out in the park and deer, rabbits and foxes were introduced for sport. They still live in the park, and are serious pests."

This is pretty much how I always understood things were back in those days. Haven't seen the guide book, so I'll have to take your word on its content.

Yes, it is true that recreation was at the forefront of considerations for the National Park, the Trustees were very proud of all the new roads and tracks and picnicking facilities. However, here are a few quotes from the official guide to the National Park published in 1893: "Above all, the trustees determined to effectually preserve the flora and fauna committed to their care, hence it is a penal offence to discharge fire-arms or interfere in any way with the birds and animals in the Park."; "For situation, the National Park is so highly favoured in the not far distant future it will stand a beautiful reserve, possessing undisturbed the best of its natural grandeur in the midst of a dense population..."; "A vast numerical increase in the number of the population is bound to mark our domestic history, and in the midst of all the multiplying changes in the passage of coming decades the National Park will remain in much the same condition as it now stands...The primaeval forests will remain untouched. No woodsman's axe is permitted to lay low the lordly trees...The whole heritage is safe beyond the reach of plunder, safe from the machinations of ambitious schemers, and secured to the people of this country upon express terms fixed and made final by Act of Parliament. It is time, and time alone, that will prove the vast value of this magnificent dowry to the people of New South Wales."