N.S.W. ENDURANCE RIDERS ASSOCIATION Inc.
Course Preservation Committee
Fiona Meller
85 Browns Rd
Kurrajong NSW 2758
Ph: (02) 4576 1344
The Secretary
Taskforce on Tourism and National Parks
GPO Box 7050
Sydney NSW 2001
parksandtourism@tourism.nsw.gov.au
July 5, 2008
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing on behalf of the NSW Endurance Riders Association Inc ("NSWERA") in response
to your invitation to make a submission to the Taskforce for Tourism and National Parks ("the
taskforce".) I am also a member of the Blue Mountains Regional Advisory Committee and have
a particular interest in the parks of the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains.
It is good to see at last a recognition of the importance of encouraging visitors into National
Parks. The old adage "if you don't use it, you lose it" is applicable here. People who do not visit
parks do not appreciate, value or respect them, and are less likely to give park-related issues
priority whether in their community or at a political level.
It is also good to see the pro-active effort at consultation with peak user groups. Although I had
already heard about this taskforce on the "grapevine", I was very pleased to receive a formal
invitation in the post to make a submission on behalf of NSWERA.
It is important for the taskforce to recognise that visitation encompasses far more than the term
"tourism" normally represents. Regular park users come from the local community and do not
perceive themselves as tourists. The taskforce must recognise that attracting and encouraging
regular local park users may require a very different strategy from attracting tourists making oneoff or occasional visits.
Endurance riders fall into both categories. On the one hand, many riders train their horses in their
local parks, making them regular and frequent park visitors. On the other hand, riders travel
widely to different locations around NSW for organised annual events, which may run in part
through one or more National Parks. In this situation, the tourism benefits extend beyond the
immediate use and enjoyment of the park. Riders and their families and helpers buy fuel and
supplies, and may also choose to visit other attractions in the area. The ride itself may benefit the
local community through fundraising.
In either situation, endurance riders, and horse riders generally, appreciate the opportunity to ride
in national parks for a variety of reasons. Partly of course riders enjoy the experience of riding a
horse, the partnership with the animal, the social aspects of riding with friends, or the solitude of
riding without them. But for an endurance rider – and an endurance horse - ten times around a
racetrack would be boring, unsatisfying and a waste of time. Yet the same distance along a bush
trail is a refreshing escape into nature and beauty for the rider (and perhaps even for the horse?
who knows.) Certainly it is a satisfying and pleasurable activity for both horse and rider. When
endurance riders train their horses in national parks, they do so not just for the distances and the
health and fitness benefits; they appreciate their environment, and derive great pleasure from
spending time in the Australian bush.
There is a positive tourism benefit to the presence of horses in national parks. On many
occasions I have stopped to allow visitors – adults as well as children – to pat my horse and take
photographs, or have given directions to lost travellers.
Horse riders can also give benefits back to national parks. We are defacto "roving rangers",
reporting dumped cars, fallen trees on management or fire trails, and illegal activities such as
firewood or bush rock removal.
Endurance ride committees take part in track maintenance before their annual events. Organisers
of endurance events also pay a modest fee for the use of a park, in proportion to their amateur,
non-profit nature and volunteer workforce. However the experience in Ku-Ring-Gai Chase
National Park has shown that a permit system for horse riders unworkable due to high cost of
administration, difficulty of enforcement, and limited availability on weekends for ad hoc users.
Unfortunately there is still an exclusionary culture within NPWS, whereby horse riding is
presumed to be prohibited by default unless specifically authorised in a plan of management or
by signage. If horse riding is not mentioned in a POM, it is not allowed. This negativity towards
horse riding in national parks is further exacerbated by the anti-horse attitude of the service
shown in former years, leading to horses being locked out of areas even when the trails have a
history of horse riding use and are suitable for riding.
An example is Marramarra National Park in Sydney's north-west, where the trails follow ridge
tops, numbers of horse riders were low and comprised mostly local residents, yet horse riding
was banned in the Plan of Management. I personally know of two families who lived near
Marramarra and who sold their homes and moved to the Hawkesbury to be closer to better horse
riding opportunities. It is no wonder that some horse riders believe they are not welcome in
national parks.
Further, the exclusion of horse riders from wilderness areas has led to confusion amongst the
public. Many people incorrectly believe that horse riding is not allowed at all in national parks
because they do not understand the distinction between a national park and a wilderness area.
The different management regimes of various land tenures also sometimes leads to a loss of
continuity of riding routes. Where former State Forests have become national parks or nature
reserves, which are still surrounded by state forest, too often that segment is closed to horse
riders, with NPWS directing riders to the "alternative facilities" provided by the remaining state
forests. This ignores firstly the continuity of the route, as a trail that was formerly part of a loop
may now end at a fence or a gate. Secondly it is completely fails to encourage park visitation.
NPWS needs to stop trying to send horse riders elsewhere and start inviting them into the parks.
Loop rides are of particular value to horse riders. Bridle trails often form the connecting links
between other trails, creating those loops and also providing variety. It is these less formal and
unconstructed tracks that NPWS is most eager to close to horse access. NPWS has no general
"bridle trail" category for horse trails that are not accessible to vehicles but which have no
constructed features. Non-vehicle tracks, even when historically developed for horse access, are
designated "walking tracks" which implicitly or explicitly means no horse access. Only a few
recent POMs are using the term "bridle trail" for a shared horse and walking track.
NSWERA supports the reversal of this attitude to an inclusive approach. Horse riding should be
by default permitted on public roads, management trails, fire trails and bridle trails in all national
parks unless there are sound and objective reasons to the contrary. Only genuine walking trails,
with constructed features like steps or walkways, or with high levels of use by walkers, should
be automatically off-limits to horses.
Ironically, horse riding is one of the cheapest activities for a national park to support, as horse
trails do not require this type of construction. Where infrastructure is present on trails, the
decisions of park managers can make the difference between a horse friendly trail and a
dangerous risk. NSWERA supports the use of cavaletti gates – a row of low step-over poles
which prevent vehicle access altogether, hinder motorbike entry, but allow horses, cyclists and
walkers to pass through. Although gaps beside vehicle barriers do allow horses to enter, they are
sometimes too narrow for safety and a rider's stirrup can become caught, for example the gate
across the McMahons Road trail in Kurrajong on the edge of Wollemi National Park.
The impact of horse usage is far lower than for motorised vehicles such as 4WDs and
motorbikes, as shown by studies such as Sara Beavis' report Horse Riding in Canberra
Nature Park (2000). The full text of this document is available from the Australian
Horse Alliance website: http://www.australianhorsealliance.asn.au/
Even walking tracks can suffer severe impacts. For example, in 1998 $500,000 was allocated to
repair two metre deep erosion gullies in the Bundeena to Otford coastal walking track in the Royal
National Park. Yet no-one suggested that the track be closed to walkers because of the cost of
maintenance or the severity of the damage. In contrast, the fire trails and management trails which
horse riders traverse must be maintained whether or not horses use them. These trails serve a
purpose beyond that of a recreational facility.
Nor does horse riding on formed trails pose any risk to endangered species. The 1998 study by
R&C Sawyer, Definition and Distribution of the Duffy’s Forest Vegetation Association – an
interpretive review, was accepted by the NSW Scientific Committee as demonstrating that horse
riding on existing trails did not present any threat to the Duffys Forest Endangered Vegetation
Community.
The oft repeated argument that "horses spread weeds" has no basis in fact. Compared with wind,
birds and native animals, horses make a negligible contribution to the spread of weeds. Even
NPWS itself admits "The limited field evidence then suggests that horse manure is not a major
contributor to the spread of exotic plants in conservation areas.” From Horses for Courses?
Recreational Horse Riding in New South Wales National Parks, Australia , by Bob Conroy and Bob
Harden. Bob Harden was a Regional Manager within NPWS at the time and Bob Conroy is now the
Director of the Central Directorate of NPWS.
Horses do require water, and where there are no dams or puddles available, creek access may be
necessary. There have been examples of trails being closed because of the "potential" for damage
to creek banks from horses crossing. NSWERA suggests that a better approach would be to
either reroute the crossing to a less sensitive area, or construct a crossing that is less easily
damaged. In a comparable situation with a walking track, there would be a bridge under
construction rather than a trail closure.
When bridges are used, they can present a problem if horses are not considered. Gaps between
planks are dangerous for horses, while slippery metal surfaces are also a risk under metal horse
shoes. In a positive example of a horse-friendly initiative, rubber matting was placed down the
centre of a metal bridge at Burralow Creek in Blue Mountains National Park after it was pointed
out that the surface was dangerous for the horse riders who use the Paterson's Range trail.
Local riders sometimes must use a horse float to travel to the trails, to avoid dangerous stretches
of busy roads. Horse float parking areas at key trail heads is therefore essential if horse riders are
to be encouraged to use specific trails. Yet there are almost no examples of parks with designated
horse float parking areas.
Even after transporting a horse by horse float to a national park, it is not always possible to
escape the traffic. From the horse rider's point of view, the biggest problem is motor bikes.
Theoretically motor bikes are restricted to public vehicle access roads and trails. On this basis, if
more management and fire trails were available to horse riders, we would be better able to avoid
dangerous incidents with bikes.
Unfortunately, illegal trail bike use on gated management trails seems to be increasing at an
exponential rate in areas like Wheeny Creek in Wollemi National Park. This is no doubt due
partly to a lack of enforcement, since there are not enough parks staff to even visit parks on a
regular basis, never mind patrol for illegal bikes. It is also partly due to ambiguous signage. Trail
bike riders do not seem to consider their bikes to be "vehicles", so a sign on a gate saying
"authorised vehicles only" will be ignored.
More extensive use of trails by horse riders rather than roads would also reduce conflicts with
road vehicles. Although the majority of car drivers are considerate towards horses, there are
always the ignorant and the arrogant who are the exception. NPWS generally closes trails which
duplicate existing sections of road, for example several short trails which avoid dangerous
corners on Comleroy Road near Wheeny Creek Reserve. Yet by using these sections of trail,
horse riders could avoid traffic if necessary.
In years gone by, many endurance rides and trail rides had their base camps in national parks.
But horse camping is no longer encouraged in national parks, with fewer and fewer locations
where it is allowed, and most of those are only retained because of their association with the
Bicentennial National Trail. Yet riders would be far more likely to travel to different parks for a
weekend if there were suitable locations for them to camp with their horses.
In conclusion, both on behalf of NSWERA and as a private individual, I urge the taskforce to
recognise the ways in which horse riding visitation can be increased, encouraged and supported
in national parks; the minimal impacts it creates; and the many positive benefits it provides.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Meller