???
Think that sounds positive... God knows.
I've skimread this (as I'd given up following this as nothign seemed to have happened for so long!) and it appears that there has been a lot of consultation with the consultation bodies - but not a lot with the actual users! My initial thoughts on it is that they are trying to corral us into designated zones - where it will eventually (slowly but surely) it will become a place where you can only ride rather than a place that could be considered amongst loads of others.
I'm going to have another read of it over lunch but initial thoughts are it is total mince and has been put together by fancy titled people to justify their wages but not actually solve or improve anything on the ground for Joe Public.
Sorry, sounds a heavy start and perhaps I'm a touched biased and cynical but it doesn't look that positive to me.
...and perhaps I'm a touched biased and cynical but it doesn't look that positive to me.
No kidding. Having read through that press release, it seems that the encouragement of outdoor activities (and therefore increase in use of resources) was unlikely to have a significant environmental imapact. That release doesn't specify whether activities take place at 'managed' areas or in the greater countryside, so unless you're pulling knowledge from previous correspondence, I think you're (skim)reading way too much into it.
Personally, I think it sound positive.
No, no other knowledge...like I said I'm quite likely to be biased...notwithstanding my previous history (which is specific to one location and nothing else), the fact it has taken so long for anything to happen has left me wondering if this is just for show and won't actually make anything materialise...
the fact it has taken so long for anything to happen has left me wondering if this is just for show and won't actually make anything materialise...
I'd agree with you there, although perhaps the conclusions simply help give credence to future projects and allow further development instead of hindering them (Carron Valley notwithstanding of course).
my reading is that the current plans don't need a strategic environmental study thu saving a small fortune and a lot of time
FE Top Brass have binned ALL trailbuilding afik(except @ GT it seems?)
[url= http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-7TZHSU ]dead wood or just as thick as two short planks?[/url]
FE top brass jumping or being pushed?
summary:
"we don't think mountain bikes/biking are/is bad for the environment - because it's sustainable, and good for you"
"we're looking at opportunities to promote facilities closer to where people live - so they haven't got to drive somewhere before they can ride"
"we've spent a lot of time and money coming to this conclusion, and don't want to go through it all again"
(we = historic scotland + Scottish Environmental Protection Agency + Scottish Natural Heritage)
sounds alright to me...
I think you have the gist of it there ahwiles.
Hmmm, I re-read it again today...doesn't sound as bad as it did in my head yesterday...although I'm still not convinced the overall picture is that rosey...I've probably gone into my rant mode as I jumped a step ahead of this report (as that is what I was picturing after this report help lay the 'foundation').
I'm going to go back under my tin foil hatted rock now and wait to see what actually happens...
If that's a press release then the press officer should be sacked.
But it looks more like their official response to calls from somewhere for an environmental impact assessment.
Were you posting because you are involved somehow Heather? If so, a bit of content would help the rest of us.
Not involved thank God - bemused onlooker 😉
Not really the environmental impact that's at issue here as all that guff was put to bed a year ago - it's just a box tick. They decided another impact assessment wasn't needed in Aug 2008 and that's what allowed them to release the framework. This latest "news" only formailsies it with SEPA so not progress in itself.
Ahwiles - the "we" in question are: sportscotland, visitscotland, eventscotland, forestry commission Scotland, scottish natural heritage, highlands and islands enterprise, scottish enterprise, scottish cycling, COSLA, CTC, IMBA & Chris Ball. Last 3 parachuted in to give the consortium credibility in the eyes of the mtb public. I think they'll be utterly toothless but in fairness, and with the possible exception of IMBA, they are probably be trying to make the best of a bad deal.
5 years+ previous shows the public org's are more preoccupied with producing strategies than achieving anything of substance so it will be very interesting to see who this new development officer turns out to be, who employs him or her and what he/she manages to achieve. Given the current climate I'm actually very surprised that budget cuts haven't axed this one
the Framework will impact positively on climate change and reducing CO2 emissions.
I'd like to see their workings for that statement 🙂
LOL
Easy for them to be so selectively emphatic about some things - and extremely ironic given the unwritten policy up to now has been to target 'high disposables' zipping about the country in cars spending money in far flung locations...
How many tax £ did it take to arrive at that load of w*nk. Do these people actually believe that anyone riding a bike actually cares about anything the SMBDC concludes?
I ride a bike and I care what this lot are up to
😉
Can see where you're coming from but it's precisely because of the £tax spend, the deliberate squandering of time and resources and the attempted hood winking of the general public that gets my dander up.