Good Cop? Bad Cop?

Not too worried about cyclists, including mountain bikers, who stay on the sealed roads in the park.

Mountain bikers only wish to be accepted as a valid user of park space without calling for the exclusion of other users.

Mountain bikers as a group accept that they have impacts and are willing to work with parks to provide:

•Free advice and free labour to maintain trails via local and national bodies.

•Bike companies will also sponsor sustainable trail building or track days.

What is the problem with children cycling? Perhaps some

children will not walk but will cycle. Anyone participating in the outdoor environment especially children will learn to appreciate nature.

You ask why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers to walk. The same question could be asked Why can't you ride? It is about choices...

People like to enjoy the environment how they chose. Limited trail areas like those in the Royal national park have been successful as walker only, multiuser and bike only off-road trails.

Mountain bikers help maintain trails via works days run by the parks and local cycle advocacy groups.

See the links below for examples of this process:

http://www.trailflix.com.au/tfx_new/articles.php?component=trailtalk

http://nobmob.com/node/11437

As you can see by the link above mountain bikers participate in trail days also closures and changes to trails can be advised via these pages.

I support cycling on established paths. I think it's positive to encourage physical activity in such an accessible bush area.

Mountain biking is a tough one when it comes to outdoor recreation... it reminds me of when i was a kid with a skateboard, and not "allowed" to ride it anywhere, of course I rode my skatie back in the 80's and 90's.

I also remember as a kid riding my bike to school, bmx or mtb, and there was a change in law that push bikes weren't allowed on footpaths (do u think as an 8 year old kid i was going to battle cars for use of the road, hell no!! so i rod e my bike on the footpath, and gave way to pedestrians).

As for mountain bikes in national parks, it's great that we are allowed on firetrails, and there's definantly a few good rides around the sydney basin, but mountain bike technology has progressed a long way in the past decade, and fire trail riding dosnt offer a challenge, especially as mountain bikes are designed to tackle the rough.

So mountain bikers have strated testing their skills thru national park walking tracks, or simply cutting in trails thru wilderness areas... or bmx trails have come and gone over the years to support the craze.

Yes riding bikes in bushland areas does not sound like a way to protecting wildlife, native plants, limit erosion destruction of habitat... but without area's for riders, there will still be riders turning a blind eye to signs and regulations... that is why when i go bushwalking it's not uncomon to stumble accross abandoned dirt jump "trails". The damage has been done, and the track isnt even used... yet there latest wave of kids coming thru could be building a track in a different area and the impact and change on the environment is not contained to an area.

from my understanding, both new zealand and canada have a large network of riding areas purpose builtgiving riders a place to express themselves, an minimise impact on the environment (a good example in sydney is the manly dam mountain bike circuit, however this does not appeal to the bmx and downhill / freeride mountain bikers, but is a great cross country circuit, and i would be happy to vote for more like these)

without designated trails for the increasingly popular sport of mountain biking, an endless cycle of riders breaking the rules will continue just like back in the 1980's there was no skateparks, so we just rode at schools, street and industrial zones, but in the case of the mountain bikes it's usually a quiet walking track thru the bush, and sometimes with addition 'track work' to improve the flow or fun of the ride.

Bikes have come a long way since riding firetrails, and yes these sort of bikes are almost tank like... but the riders are mostly responsible and just want a place to hang out and have fun... and to have their voice heard.

There's always going to be "fun police", but is it stopping the impact which is the heart of the issue...

PS I would be happy to volunteer 1 day per month for the development of biking trails in my local area that supports the standard of riding at both the elite and entry level,and promotes safety and care for the environment.

http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=keewee%20stealth&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

ceegee - where in SHNP in particular do you see a conflict between MTB use and natural resource values, and conflict between MTB users and other users ?

Your Federal Court examples do not seem to relate to any Australian Federal Court ?

Certainly MTB use requires effective management, however NSW NPWS are managing this appropriately as a shared user resource in many reserves. I appreciate your viewpoint - it seems to be widely promulgated by you across the internet, but this is about managing use and users, not items. Shoes are inanimate objects with no rights and there is no specific right to walk in all NSW conservation reserves (some Nature Reserves in particular come to mind) but no one is thinking of banning it anytime soon for the general public. Effective and considered reserve management is the point here.

Forget the mountain bikes, bulldozers are far more destructive. Remove all roads, Parks and Wildlife offices and buildings, self aggrandising signs and other paraphernalia from National Parks.

Maybe it's a state government funding question, if National parks does not of the resources to police the rules.

Sorry Tony, I beg to differ.

Most nudists are not single. Cobblers has long been a "family friendly" clothes-optional beach with grandmas and toddlers etc. I would be happier if Obelisk was the same. It used to be another family friendly beach in the old days when Middle Head was still a Commonwealth "prohibited area".

As far as I know, nobody stops you from wearing anything at these beaches so just go down and enjoy the sun and quiet water. That's if you can find a place to park in this popular place.

Of course, if there were more free beaches around Sydney then there would be less demand on these two small beaches.

And for those who find bathing as God intended offensive (or who usually prefer the safety of a formal swimming place, like I do) then not far from this headland is Chowder Bay. I have never seen a naked person at Chowder Bay, but then I suppose that most of us have not been particularly interested in looking for such people there.

Tony I also beg to differ,

There are many family beaches for clothed swimming, unfortunately far too few for nude swimming.

Every weekend in summer there are a number of families at Cobblers Beach enjoying the sea and the sun, as nature intended.

One of the reasons for this is the relative ease of access compared to other "clothing optional" beaches that require one to be part mountain goat to get to them. This allows the elderly members of the family access and with an aging population there will be more of them in the future.

Lets keep Coblers beach for the families, including those who wish to go clothes free.

As an avid rockclimber, I've found the ban on climbing in SHNP incredibly frustrating. I've often found myself in Syndey for work, or passing through sydney as part of larger climbing holidays and been quite disappointed and bemused by the arbitrary ban.

The climbing community maintains a excellent working relationships with land managers of numerous similar areas, with a long history of low-impact private outdoor recreation occurring with almost no conflict (or even interaction) with other user groups and yet this vaguely worded ban is in place at SHNP.

I hope it can be examined as part of this review and a more reasonable management regime established.

-Adam Gibson.

Chris makes an excellent point. Surely between NPWS and climbers we can find a way to re-open access?

From the previous Management Plan...

<i>4.2.2 Recreational Opportunities

P36

An extensive network of walking tracks provides access to places of scenic, natural and cultural interest. Some potentially dangerous places where visitor safety is an

issue will be closed, safety fenced and/or signposted, although generally there is no desire to impede access to features of interest.</i>

I understand NPWS concern, but why is rock climbing banned here but not in other NSW National Parks. A consistant approach by Govt. would be a much more defendable policy.

<i>P37

Camping and horseriding and rock climbing have never been permitted in Sydney Harbour National Park due to the small size of the park and the incompatibility of these activities with other park uses.</i>

This is only the case since the first Management Plan. Not only did rock climbers utilise the location but fisher-persons used to as well, accessing some unlikely locations vide the cliffs. I truly fail to see how rock climbing has been 'justifiably'(?) singled out as being <i>incompatable with other park uses</i>.

<i>Policies

P43

* Camping, horseriding, rockclimbing and abseiling will not be permitted in Sydney Harbour National Park.</i>

Why specifically ban rock climbing? NPWS would have better control over it if it was managed in a more user friendly manner, as anecdotal reports I have heard indicate that some of these non-permitted activities still take place from time to time in the Parks.

<i>P33

4.2 USE OF THE PARK

The park will be managed to ensure that its use, by the general public, special interest groups, Service managers or other authorities, is appropriate and conforms with this plan of management.

Appropriate uses include:

- promotion and interpretation of the park’s natural and cultural heritage;

- certain types of low-impact recreation; and

- management operations by the Service and other authorities with statutory responsibilities in the area.</i>

I categorise rock climbing as a low-impact recreation. I have been participating in this activity since the mid 1960's and have climbed on many of Sydneys sea cliffs prior to the banning of it. The opportunity for the next generations to do similar should not be denied them due to spurious reasons dictated to us by policy makers not familiar with the activities they ban, particularly in the case of rock climbing which has improved vastly in safety due to modern technology and techniques.

If the fear of litigation is behind the old policy, then I suggest that, that thinking is outmoded by more recent legislation, and it would be sensible for policy makers to revise their strategy in light of more recent legislation/events.

Yours sincerely,

Rod.

Rockclimbing was happening on the seacliffs long before the 80's and 90's, with early ascents from the 1960's on North Head and The Gap. It's hard to find valid resons for any ban on rockclimbing, unless there are tourists wandering directly below.

In complete agreement with Chris.

Rockclimbing is not "incompatible" with park users on Sydney sea-cliffs where climbing activities are carried out within contact with only one other user group - fishing people.

I would like to see climbing reallowed.

Climbing is/has:

* a significant history with the area;

* low impact;

* participants are environmentally aware and consultative;

* widely accepted in other park management plans;

* physically separate from other park users and therefore does not impinge on their enjoyment (and vice versa)

And lastly National Parks should be a community resource managed and made available for the enjoyment of the general public. This includes climbers.

Having moved recently to Sydney from Melbourne I am amazed at the opportunities for rock climbing in this city. Unfortantly much of the best rock seems to be banned for ambiguous reasons. North Head and The Gap areas should be open to climbers - they are fantastic climbing venues, accessible by public transport and out of view to other park users. Climbing is a safe activity with modern equipment. Let the local climbers use the amazing natural resources near their homes! It would save a lot of petrol and CO2 for the climbers who are forced to drive 100km outside of the city to find legal rock.

I have also heard this cited as the reason and it has baffled me. Having climbed in several other parks where it was permitted, climbers and walkers (among other users) didn't interfere either with each others use, safety or enjoyment. I can't see how this would be different in SHNP. Perhaps someone could explain the reasoning...?

It would be great if climbing were allowed.

As I have always believed, the banning of certain activities in National Parks is very much an arbitary decision made by whoever may be in charge of the given park. Rock climbers seem to coexist with other park users in other high use parks such as The Blue Mountains NP and Warrumbungles NP. I believe that this is because the NP Officials in those parks, understand rockclimbers and accept rock climbing as a valid activity. It has always been obvious to me that the officials in charge of the Sydney Harbour NP see rock climbing as some kind of fringe activity with little to no validity. It's a shame.

Areas such as North Head, which have great history and aesthetics, make compelling climbing destinations. I agree with all the preceding positive comments.

There shouldn't be a blanket ban on rock climbing esp on an area that is obviously so popular and close to the city. If safety of those walking under is the issue then surely this can be negotiated. If the problem is with birds again climbers would respect access restrictions with nesting. As already said, many times above climbers are very environmentally conscious. Please reconsider this issue x

I agree with the excellent points that RodSmith has raised.

I agree with all of the positive comments advocating that rock climbing be allowed within SHNP. In fact I would go further and assert that rock climbing should be allowed BY DEFAULT in all NPs in NSW, unless specifically banned within an individual Plan of Management (and only then with specific, measurable, tangible justification).

That said, having been involved in several responses to local government and NPWS reviews of rockclimbing on lands they manage (including some of the ones Kevin mentions above) since I started climbing in the mid 1990s, I have to agree with Kevin that it's hard to believe NPWS will pay any serious consideration to the comments on this thread (or indeed any other pro-climbing submission, solicited or otherwise).

Adding insult to injury is the permit system that NPWS claims provides legal rockclimbing access to some of these areas. In my almost 15 years of climbing (most of which was spent in Sydney) I have yet to hear of a *single* permit issued to an individual, amateur climbing enthusiast. In comparison NPWS seems quite happy to rent out our public lands to commercial interests (something I have nothing against, mind you, provided the public have equal, zero cost access for non-commercial use).

So while I'm all for the Sydney (and wider!) climbing community getting organised and responding to this thread, I fear it will take more visible, vocal and above all *well organised* activism to shake up the anti-climbing bureaucracy that seems entrenched within NPWS (and the SHNP bureaucracy in particular - one of, if not the single most aggressively anti-climbing National Parks in Australia).

I understand your cynicism Kevin, as based on previous experience, however I am encouraged by the fact that this forum exists for folk such as you and I to make constructive comments on.

I reckon that I would be pretty amazed to read a NPWS reply comment here!

:)

In my post (above) I alluded to the Arnstein “Ladder of Citizen Participation”.

Some people reading my post may not understand that allusion but any recent graduate staff of NPWS should be familiar with this concept if their studies included the relevant and innovative Australian textbook - Worboys G, Lockwood M and De Lacy T 2001, 2003 “Protected Area Management – Principles and Practice” Oxford University Press, South Melbourne.

The text makes reference (pp 119, 120) to Arnstein’s work, originally published as - Arnstein, Sherry R. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, July 1969, pp. 216-224. 1. Citizen participation is citizen power - wherein Arnstein defines the Types of Participation and “Nonparticipation” as follows:

……………………………………………………..

A typology of eight levels of participation may help in analysis of this confused issue. For illustrative purposes the eight types are arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens' power in determining the end product.

The bottom rungs of the ladder are (1) Manipulation and (2) Therapy. These two rungs describe levels of "non-participation" that have been contrived by some to substitute for genuine participation. Their real objective is not to enable people to participate in planning or conducting programs, but to enable powerholders to "educate" or "cure" the participants. Rungs 3 and 4 progress to levels of "tokenism" that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice: (3) Informing and (4) Consultation. When they are proffered by powerholders as the total extent of participation, citizens may indeed hear and be heard. But under these conditions they lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by the powerful. When participation is restricted to these levels, there is no follow-through, no "muscle," hence no assurance of changing the status quo. Rung (5) Placation is simply a higher level tokenism because the ground rules allow have-nots to advise, but retain for the powerholders the continued right to decide.

Further up the ladder are levels of citizen power with increasing degrees of decision-making clout. Citizens can enter into a (6) Partnership that enables them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional power holders. At the topmost rungs, (7) Delegated Power and (8) Citizen Control, have-not citizens obtain the majority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power.

……………………………………………………..

So what is the relevance of this to us as climbers? Well, in the last ten or so years NPWS has hosted a couple of Stakeholder Workshops to allow interested parties to discuss their concerns and suggest management objectives ahead of a draft Plan of Management being prepared for the protected areas concerned.

I attended the Workshops held ahead of preparing Plans of Management for

Evans Crown Nature Reserve (Tarana) and Gardens of Stone National Park. It was interesting, as an advocate for climbers’ interests, to listen to the concerns of other users and stakeholders and the workshops were conducted in a manner that ensured nobody felt left out or offended.

But I am left wondering how much of the user/stakeholder feedback actually feeds through intact to the published management document.

There are many steps in the formulation of a protected area Plan of Management but it seems to me that only the Workshop stage, in those limited cases where this occurs, is open and transparent. We have no way of knowing in detail what NPWS staff put into the draft that goes forward to the local Advisory Committee. Nor do we have any idea what is then passed to the Advisory Council. And of course we have absolutely no knowledge of what advice the Council finally passes on to the Director General and the Minister.

As a consequence it is difficult to measure whether climbers’ participation to date in the consultative process has had any effect. Could these exercises be conducted to make participants feel ‘warm and fuzzy’ and part of an “inclusive” process?

But cynicism aside, the ‘Bang The Table’ forum is a new and an innovative move by NPWS to provide a mechanism for public input to the planning process and is to be welcomed, the more so if we see a greater level of transparency arising out of this process.

I would like to also add my support for the 'privilege' to climb on what is a very unique & spectacular cliff area. Due to the nature of the cliff access here there would be very little, if any, visual intrusion on other park users and no chance of them being exposed to any danger as other users stick to the cliff tops. Climbers are very active in other parks keeping the areas clean with minimal 'footprint'; on the whole we are a responsible community & I can see no valid reason preventing climber access.

I learnt to climb in Sydney at Barrenjoey, but most of my climbing has been hrs away from sydney as alot of the good climbing is banned or restricted access. Area's like North Head would be a great addition to the climbing scene, and a step up in from the small cliffs at Barrenjoey.

I dont see how allowing climbers into the area will have a bad impact, as climbers enjoy the natural beauty of a place and minimize their impact.

An excellent summary.

I have been walking/scrambling/climbing on the sea cliff areas of SHNP for over forty years since my family moved to Clontarf (right on the edge of the NP) in 1969. The NP has significant ecological value. I have seen a vast improvement in the management of the park over the years (e.g. Tanya Park area and Fairy Bower headland). Banning of climbers has not contributed to the improvement of management. Climbing is a valid use of any national park (especially when there is historical precedence) as long as climbers adhere to minimal impact guidelines. Mountain bikers/walkers/fisherpersons/bus load of tourists at North Head/climbers - what's the difference? The attitude of National Parks management. I for one would like to make a significant contribution to ensuring that climbing is allowed again as I am sick of feeling guilty and dis-empowered when I spot a good line in an area that I have been using for recreation for a very long time.

Well said Dave. I also don't understand what is meant by "incompatible with other park uses".

The number of posts above is clear evidence of the enthusiasm for reintroducing climbing within SHNP.

When I arrived from the UK in 1999, one of the things that impressed me most about Sydney was its enthusiasm to make its natural advantages available to all. On going attempts to retain foreshore access and create extra parks and open spaces is testimony to this. It therefore seems at odds with this that climbing is banned on the sea cliffs. These beautiful and unused rockfaces are, if nothing else, a missed opportunity to allow a small percentage of the population an unrivalled ability to experience the city and its environs in another way.

I know that we are addressing a question about whether climbing should be allowed again bacuase of the previous ban. I would like to think that a POM review would take the approach of presuming that activities that are not intrinsically illegal or inappropriate, should be permitted. We should presume to allow activites except where good justification or a weight of public opinion indicates the activity should be banned.

This is a time when we are trying to encourage activity and exercise. This is a perfectly complimentary sport for this area. You would not ban sailing on the harbour for fear that a walker would have there vision of the harbour spoilt because of a yacht.

I totally agree with all the above comments about rock climbing being allowed in SHNP. I am at a bit of a loss to see why other visitors would see rock climbing as being a problem. I currently live in the UK but am from Narrabeen originially, I've climbed a lot in the UK in national parks and on sea cliffs and the majority of people stop and watch and enjoy watching people climbing. Personally I think that its a ridiculous arguement that rock climbing could detrimentally affect others enjoyment of the park.

The fact that climbing is now banned at North Head and the Gap has reached the UK and this can only have a detrimental effect on tourisim in the area as well with climbers heading for other destinations.

North Head and the Gap should be reopened to climbers.

I definitely agree that consultation between climbers and NPWS would be a constructive thing.

As a Brisbane Climber I must agree that Climbing must be allowed in the Sydney Harbour National Park. Anyone who has visited Brisbane would see the amazing resource we have in our CBD being the Kangaroo Point Cliffs. This is an example of the Government and Council supporting climbers and actively providing a resource which is very highly regared.

What a wonderful thing for Sydney if you were able to climb in your NP.

It is all too easy to just ban something such as Rock Climbing because from a political position its easy to defend and the backlash isn't enough to get anyone kicked out of power.

That said we also have inequality in Qld where a NP allows Abseiling but not Rock Climbing - go figure!

If they are intent on banning rock climbing then they should also ban walking and breathing in a National Park because they have about the same environmental impact.

On a personal level, I agree and offer my wholehearted support to allow climbing in Sydney Harbour National Park and look forward to the day when sensibilities take charge and reverse what can only be seen as an arbitrary ban.

On a professional level as the Access and Environment Officer for the Victorian Climbing Club, I also offer support on behalf of the committee and club. From my experience as the A&E Officer, I totally understand that there are areas, which, for a variety of well supported reasons are not suitable for climbing and other leisure activities. And it is obvious, if one cares to look at various areas in NSW and indeed across Australia, that the climbing community is more than willing to accept those that do make sense for a ban. As many have noted previously, this ban does not make sense.

All I can see from this ban is that it is simply - arbitrary. Any of its supporting evidence seems to be merely rhetoric lifted from other plans of management as an acceptable reason to ban climbing as an activity.

I do hope that this opportunity to comment, and that our offerings as a usergroup/community are taken on board and that further dialogue can ensue. Again, as past events have shown – it is good to talk. Those that make the effort to listen, and most importantly, understand, will find a receptive community, willing to find a workable solution.

There are so many opportunities for other user groups to appreciate the beauty of the SHNP whilst spending time doing what they love doing. To allow climbers, from local, interstate and international destinations to also enjoy this, would be a huge step forward for those that manage the parks and one that would be commended.