If I Were the Rock Climbers
To try and move the NCC to work with the climbing coalition my suggestion would be that the coalition pick two points that the NCC hold dear and challenge them publicly as to how the current approach is not satisfying those objectives.
The NCC want ecological conservation; the climbers coalition agree. Challenge the NCC saying that you don’t agree that the current direction will result in better conservation. Have your facts at the ready when asked how you can justify that.
The NCC state “We… strongly believe that public involvement and open dialogue with the public are key determining factors in the success of our projects, plans and programs.” In fact a mandate review in 2006 pointed to failings in this regard which resulted in a complete restructuring of the upper management of the NCC. Point to the apparent absence of this principal in your case.
If I Were the NCC
As a writer I know that even if I have an idea clearly in my mind, if my readers don’t get it—more, if my readers don’t enjoy reading it—I’ve still got some rewriting to do. If I were the NCC the equivalent would apply; if my user groups feel dictated-to and that their meaningful contributions aren’t being heard, I’ve still got some dialoging to do.
Moreover, as the NCC I’d know that I face cynicism as to public image and that coming through with a successful collaboration with the climbers will be a major coup in building trust among user groups. Because I as the NCC I am seeking partnerships with other groups to manage other activities, a domino effect of disaffected users is just the opposite of what I’d desire. In contrast I’d prefer a Park user population in agreement with the NCC’s goals and methods who would carry their culture of Park protection with them on each visit.
This doesn’t mean sacrificing ecosystems, it means working to save ecosystems with the collaboration of climbers.
I think you’ve summed the situation up nicely. It was put forward at the meeting on Monday and it’s much better than going on a hard attack.
Excellent points except the new Conservation shtick was pulled out of the air. Staff that were there for 20+ years were surprised by this. Your approach works with reasonable people. Unless what you want dovetails w/the NCC plan you are out of luck.
If something is sensitive where do you create the trail or route? Common sense says away from this area. The NCC says ban any trail/route because people are liable to crash thru the brush in order to find & trample sensitive plants. NCC common sense.
Park users want the park to be there for their use. Yes I’m selfish but if I wasn’t interested in it why would I bother. By ensuring a practical solution we can ensure everyone can be accomadated.
The biggest problem is that the NCC has ALWAYS talked out of both sides of their mouth. One side the great protectors of the park & on the other side letting the trail system fall into such disrepair (water damage) then using heavy machinery to create mini-roadways. How about cutting 700 hundred trees for a new paved road so Buses can access the tea & scone shop more easily or driving pickup trucks & ATVs on the trails that are too sensitive to allow mountainbikes.
Do I have a bug up my A$$? You bet I do & that bug is the scale of the NCC’s hypocracy.
The NCC has to be embrassed publically & in front of their political masters. That will never happen if people meet w/ them on their terms.
Mr. Stewart, you are a shrewd observer and understand the NCC’s ruthless realpolitik.
I’m really fed up with all these sheepish, kiss-ass bloggers who grovel before the NCC–asking pretty please to be allowed to play in their own goddamn back yard, wanting to cozy up to these rotten commissars.
The NCC casts a great darkness across the national capital landscape–it must be exposed for the fraud it is and brought to its knees.