ARC views on 'off road impacts'

[PeterVahry]

http://www.auckland4wd.org.nz/visitors/ ... efault.asp

Check the views of the Auckland Regional Council researchers and judge if there's any bias. They are calling for comment before 6 March 2009

[Denby]

WOW

This is a must read... and probably a must respond.

And not just for people from the Auckland region... this has the potential for being the thin end of the green wedge.

I suggest you read all the questions before putting pen to paper.

[tallsam66]

I had a quick read .seems to be very anti everyone....
They didnt even attempt to find any positive sides to the issue.
Didnt make any reference to "damage" caused my any other non motorised users (mountian biks etc )
Almost all the studies the quoted were over seas studies & old (2001) ....without extensive research into the studies its hard to tell exactly what these study determine...how accurate were thses studies etc .
Even the questions they wanted answered are very 1 sided..

Seems to be the first stepp on shutting the great outdoors to all but walkers.

[Shilo]

But if we don't reply then the anti-4wd'ers will be the only submissions and gates will be permanently slammed shut against us. Instead in the 1st question point out that the report and the questions are biased then list the positive impacts for example recreational usage for those not interested in tramping, organised planting and trail maintenance, improved SAR access and ability etc.

[NJV6]

Someone obviously has a bee in their bonnet!

[DieselBoy]

Ouch

Key Summary Points

• A significant number of off road motorised recreation users exist within the
Auckland region. There are 26 off road motorised recreation clubs within the
Auckland region with reported memberships of between 70-180 participants. It is
estimated that there are 8,500 off road vehicles (regularly used off road) in the
region and 250,000 off road trips per year.

• There is a high environmental price associated with off road motorised recreation.
Environmental effects of off road use range from ecological disturbance to serious
impacts on sensitive ecosystems. A poorer ecological landscape and death of flora
and fauna are some effects of off road vehicular use.

• Social nuisance of off road vehicular recreation is a significant issue. Off road
vehicle use can displace outdoor users such as bird watchers, mountain bikers,
walkers and trampers. The nuisance factor as well as potential safety concerns can
drive away these users in areas where there is off road vehicle use.

• There are negative economic impacts associated with off road vehicular use, such
as costs for environmental mitigation, accidents associated with off road vehicle
use and associated costs and the costs of regulating off road vehicular usage.

• The ORMR impacts study identifies a wide range of potential impacts from ORMR.
Given the complexity of off road motorised recreation, from organised competition
at established sites through to casual and often illegal use on public land and
beaches, it is clear that a combination of potential responses will need to be
explored to manage the current and future impacts of ORMR. It is considered that
responses will need to be explored that provide for all types of activity, including
unstructured casual access as failure to do so will likely lead to the on-going illegal
use of sites.

[tracta]

what a bunch of wankers. (sorry this has got me a little fired up). ill be doing the questionairre, in a completly unbiased way, the same as that report. does anyone know if there has been an independent report done as well?

as the missus said, mountain bikers are worse half the time anyways with the speed they go. at least i know what I have hit cause im going so slow (trees/rocks not people)

[Heath]

Seems to be the first stepp on shutting the great outdoors to all but WANKERS.

Fixed it for you

[Leithfield]

Certainly there is a suggested significant inherent bias, however the process underway can also provide a constructive opportunity to develop our recreation , e.g. :
- emphasising the need for education
- encouraging that the NZFWDA be "involved in managing the current and future impacts of off road motorised recreation in the Auckland region"
- emphasising the poverty of land tracts set aside for ORMR recreation
- emphasising that we too share responsible environmental concerns and are intolerant of the minority who abuse
- etc, etc.

When one can not mandate the system, one must then attempt to employ it to best effect.

[coxsy]

seen questionaire, to wordy for me to reply in any form

[kiwiphilip]

Greetings

Does the report have an inherent bias or are all of the effects listed actually real and we have to acknowledge that this is so?

However, as others have pointed out, all activities have an effect of some sort and the challenge for the ARC is to balance these effects with both its statutory responsibility and the need to provide services to all its constituents.

They clearly don't have their head in the sand as they realise they have to do something constructive or they will simply encourage continued illegal activity

It is considered that responses will need to be explored that provide for all types of activity, including unstructured casual access as failure to do so will likely lead to the on-going illegal use of sites.

So as let's help them with constructive input explaining how it is possible to provide for sustainable off-road use through a programme of voluntary education and enforcement lead by responsible four wheel drive clubs and drivers.

Regards Philip

[DieselBoy]

A couple of bullshit answers if anyone wants to plug them into the questioneer

Q1
My main concern is the continued access to NZ's natural environment through motorised recreation. The Auckland region has many places that i and manyothers enjoy visiting, and we do so via motorised means. Continued access to these places via vehicular means is a top concern of mine.


Q2
I strongly believe the NZ4WDA should be approached and used as a source of representation for the NZ 4WD comunity's views on any matters concerning the above. Particularly in terms of continued and improved access to current and future motorised recreation areas.

Q3
Yes, my concern is that there is currently a negative view of motorised recreation, and as a result there is a threat to the current access avaiable to all areas where motorised reacreation is under taken.

[Leithfield]

Does the report have an inherent bias or are all of the effects listed actually real and we have to acknowledge that this is so?
Regards Philip

Having taken the time to critically apprise some of the studies the ARC report references, I can confidently answer in the affirmative; the report does have an inherent bias Kiwiphilip.

It is crucially important in the evaluation of data from studies that may impact policy that the reader (ARC members included) understands the scientific method. One must consider:
1) the ultimate impact and use of the results
2) the validity of the test methods
3) the reliability of the data
4) the biological plausibility of the results and
5) the degree to which the data can be applied from the narrow conditions of the study to “real world” conditions.
It is critically important to realise that the publication of data from a single or limited number of studies does not mean that the conclusions are “true.” Data from any given study are only as good as the experimental design and proper execution of methods.

In it's defence, the ARC subtly acknowledge the same: "The ORMR impacts study identified a wide range of potential impacts from ORMR" (Section 4 Page 18), and it would be quite erroneous and misleading to infer that there is a repeatable, statistically significant, cause/effect relationship for each of the noted ORMR vs Environment/Cultural/Social/Economic 'impacts'.

That aside, the need for constructive input from the ORMR community remains paramount.

[Pico42]

Have only skimmed the document, but that is one of the most one-sided, biased reports I have seen from a regional authority. As a professional document it is shit. So many examples pulled from barely relevant sources (the american spade foot toad FFS) to convert supposition into fact.

...Unless all those people who partake in Off Road Motorised Recreation within the wider Auckland area are really dune raking, nest/egg crushing, bird mushing, decibel outputting, polluting redneck 4WDer's...

Submissions due on 6th March.

[Denby]

REMEMBER

They are calling for comment before 6 March 2009

[PeterVahry]

It's March on Sunday which means only five days from then to get your comments about the 'Impacts Paper' to the ARC.
A wet Saturday could be ideal to read and write to try to get a future for four wheeling.

www.auckland4wd.org.nz/visitors/article ... efault.asp

Peter

[Pedro]

I threw in preventing Disabled people from accessing remote areas, that is one hell of a biased survey

pedro

A couple of bullshit answers if anyone wants to plug them into the questioneer

Q1
My main concern is the continued access to NZ's natural environment through motorised recreation. The Auckland region has many places that i and manyothers enjoy visiting, and we do so via motorised means. Continued access to these places via vehicular means is a top concern of mine.


Q2
I strongly believe the NZ4WDA should be approached and used as a source of representation for the NZ 4WD comunity's views on any matters concerning the above. Particularly in terms of continued and improved access to current and future motorised recreation areas.

Q3
Yes, my concern is that there is currently a negative view of motorised recreation, and as a result there is a threat to the current access avaiable to all areas where motorised reacreation is under taken.

[PeterVahry]

A response from the company conducting the evaluation for the ARC can be found on http://www.auckland4wd.org.nz