Guidelines for Responding to the
Draft Recreational Plan Recommendations for Mountain Bikes
Because of the significant restrictions
that the draft plan would impose on Mountain Biking, it is imperative that
every cyclist in the state respond with comments before February 28. Response
info is at the end of this page. This page goes over the general
aspects on responding to the draft plan. More specifics are available
from the the following in-depth pages:
To facilitate your response, we have put together a "skeleton"
of a letter that you could use as a starting point. However,
please do not use this skeleton as a substitute for reviewing the guidelines
we have presented here.
It is not clear how the DEC will handle,
or take action upon, letters received. However, it is not likely that they
are simply going to count "fors" and "againsts" and see who "won", although
certainly, the more letters sent in hte better. As far as the DEC is concerned,
they have researched the issues as they see them, and have put together
an acceptable compromise plan that addresses all competing concerns. We
think that many aspects of their plan are unacceptable, and if we want
to get the plan revised, then we need to provide convincing, persuasive
arguments as to why their conclusions are in some cases wrong. Letters
that simply say "I don't want restrictions" aren't going to get anywhere.
The DEC told me they "didn't expect mountain bikers to like the recommendations",
so just telling them you don't like it won't be bringing anything new to
the table. Here are some guidelines on how to prepare you letter.
Our responses may be more effective if a similar message is received from
lots of respondents. Of course, the final form of your response is
up to you.
Read
the whole Plan, and comment on what it says
Comment letters that do not respond
to what the plan actually recommends will be discarded as uninformed or
otherwise clueless. The plan does not say "mountain bikes suck and should
be kicked off everywhere". Read
the whole plan. The DEC has included provisions that strive to accommodate
cyclists. However, we don't think these mitigate the proposed dramatic
change in management approach. We need to respond to exactly what is in
the plan that we don't like. The primary objections are the switch to "closed-unless-signed-open"
policy, and the duration of the wet season closure.
Present
your ideas constructively
The DEC has spent two years preparing
this document. The authors of the plan, who will also be those revising
the plan, will take any comments you make personally because of the time
and effort they have invested in this work. If you want to influence their
revision of the document, you must provide constructive comments backup
with sound reason. Angry or insulting comments will work against us.
Recognize
the parts of the plan you agree with
Comment letters that are entirely negative
send the message that you are just a complainer or an obstructionist. Aspects
of the plan to which the official NYMBC/IMBA response will agree with are
discussed here
. For example, we support closure of inherently unsustainable trails (to
all users), and a limited wet season closure period (though with flexibility
in some cases and certainly not 6 months!). Please review these and consider
incorporating similar comments in your letter. Your scope of agreement
may differ from this, so feel free to say what you think.
Show
why the premises of their justification are unsupported
The "Environmental Impacts, Constraints,
and User Conflicts" and "Analysis" sections developed for each of the 19
activities addressed in the plan lay out the justification for the recommendations
made for each activity. For mountain bicycling, these sections are on pages
56 through 58 (remember, though,read
the whole plan!). These sections are based on anecdotal experience
at best, and are not supported by studies of trail use and impact. A more
detailed review of these issues, part of the official NYMBC/IMBA response,
is presented
here
. There is no question that poor trail design and high levels of use can
cause bad trails. However, for the most part, there has been no distinction
made as to why bicycles are being singled out as the cause of the impact.
An important thing
not to do: Do not base any of you arguments on "horses/ATVs/whatever
do much more damage to trails". This is not a persuasive argument. As you
see in the plan, it does not like horses much better, and ATVs are still
banned everywhere. It is true that horses and ATVs impact the trail more
than anything else, and sometimes cyclists get blamed for the damage they
caused. However, this is not an effective argument for more bicycle access.
Similarly, arguments like "I'm a taxpayer, too", don't work, since nobody
is telling you that you can't go in the forest. What the DEC is trying
to say is that you can't ride your bicycle there in many places, which
is entirely different.
Provide
a summary of exactly what you want to change in the plan
After you have discussed what is right
and wrong with the plan (and why), provide a summary of just what exactly
you want to see kept in the plan, and what you want changed. We want some
things to change. There should be no confusion about what it is we should
change. The NYMBC/IMBA summary is here
.
Provide
your vision of mountain biking in state forests
Responding to exactly what the plan
says is the most important goal of your letter. However, in closing, consider
discussing mountain biking in state forests in more general terms. Even
without considering the recommendations, the draft plan appears to be subtly
biased against bicycle usage and this colors the conclusions they reach.
For example, some of the items addressed by the NYMBC/IMBA response are
here
. Of particular concern, the plan has a default of approach of discussing
trails in terms of either "footpaths" or "multipurpose". This presents
a built in bias before evaluation even begins. This is an inappropriate
distinction, that consciously or unconsciously lumps cycling in with higher
impact forms or recreation such as horses and motorized users. A much more
appropriate distinction is between human powered and non-human powered
recreation. This distinction more accurately describes the range of users
of the trail and their impacts.
SEND
YOUR LETTERS IN!!
Deadline is February 28. The official
designated addresses to sent them to is:
NYSDEC
Division of Lands and Forests
Re: Recreation Master Plan
2715 State Hwy.
Sherburne, NY 13460
(tel. 607-674-4036)
or
NYSDEC
Division of Lands and Forests
Re: Recreation Master Plan
1285 Fisher Ave.
Cortland, NY 13045
(tel. 607-753-3095)
Please copy your letters, especially
the really good ones, to the higher ups in the DEC. These would include:
Thomas Wolfe
Chief, Bureau of Public Lands
Robert Davies
Director, Division of Lands and Forests
Peter Duncan
Executive Deputy Commissioner
these three official are at:
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 12233
also consider:
Kenneth Lynch
Director, Region 7
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
615 Erie Blvd. West
Syracuse, NY 13204-2400
The public meetings ar enow over.
But for the record, the meeting dates and locations were:
Jan. 7, Homer High School, 80 West Road,
Homer
Jan. 8, BOCES, Butterfly Road, Mexico
Jan. 9, SUNY Forestry school, Syracuse,
Baker Lab
Jan 15, Johnson City High, 666 Reynolds
Road, Johnson City
Jan 17, Norwich High, Midland Drive,
Norwich.
Here are a couple more links to check for staying up to date on advocacy issues. The FLCC has a newsletter you can join here: http://www.topica.com/lists/flcc/ The New York Mountain Biking Coalition (NYMBC) has a lot of useful information and an email newsletter you can join here: http://www.nymbc.com
Of course: if you are serious about Mountain Biking then join the IMBA: