You are hereForums / Club Forums / Glenrock Trail Advocacy / Seuss Land - Potential Trail Works and Solutions

Seuss Land - Potential Trail Works and Solutions

Lenny_GTA's picture

By Lenny_GTA - Posted on 07 September 2013

Seuss Land for a long time was a controversial trail for the NPWS due to some EEC. In the near future we will need to do some works on it.

In the past we have discussed whether to use the high or low leg at the end of Seuss Land, consensus seemed to be the upper trail leg, but lets keep this discussion open. I prefer the lower trail to ride, but the upper trail requires a lot less work to bring up to a sustainable standard.

But what does everyone think about the rest of the trail, how to fix runoff issues etc?

Obviously due to the EEC, any solution needs to be signed off on by the NPWS, but lets start thinking about this trail as a whole.

pharmaboy's picture

i mostly take the bottom trail, in the main because its faster and has a great little finish at the end . BUT its getting deeper and deeper over time.

I expect the NPWS will hate this idea, but I quite like the way the trails naturally migrate around the wet areas over time, seeking their own equilibrium. The trick is just accept that trails will slowly migrate uphill away from water collection points, and to make sure the boggy bits are closed off and dont widen the trail when it dries again. we only end up with 2 trails because one is ridden in the wet and the other the dry.

i dont think the area needs much wet weather treatment, because when i ride in to that are and its still muddy i know the rest of GR will be too, so i can stick to my wet weather loop.

Its also highly used by walkers and good vision needs to be maintained,

i dont know exactly where the orchid grows, and so always assumed the upper trail would become the trail because of the orchid, though npws seems not so worried about that issue

Hop fiend's picture

My thoughts too!

James_Newy's picture

Lower leg also for me for the reasons stated above by Pharma.

Chris_P's picture

I prefer the upper leg, mainly for the rock step downs just before the s-berms where the two legs join back up. It is also an A-line B-line sort of situation where those who do not like the steps go a bit further up for the left turn. That being said I have no problem with the lower leg.

Johnn's picture

I also prefer the top trail as an all weather trail. Also, to avoid the walkers who tend to use the bottom trail. I've never come across a pedestrian on the top trail.
Closing will mean more traffic on the remaining trail and I have doubts that the lower one will take it.
Which ever one is closed, it is going to upset the walkers ie they will have to share it with more riders.
Closing a track may not be practical.

lounge lizard's picture

Probably not very PC, but I (and others) often ride both upper and lower trails as a loop, if I don't want to continue on to shaft.

It makes for a good alternative if things are still drying out, and allows you to return to BJ's and continue on....

Since the work was done a while ago, I think both trails have held up pretty well, and barring one or two swillys on the bottom trail didn't think much work was required.

My 2c worth......

inertia's picture

I prefer the upper leg as it is longer and more twisty - and I start and finish at the top of sh!tworks road, so at that point I'm trying to milk just a teeny bit more singletrack out.

Empy's picture

Has been discussed but we have just a couple of problems.

First; If you ride back ten where do you go from there?

Second; The NPWS only want one trail.

Johnn's picture

Follow the people on their walks / runs.
I'm looking at what's happening to the south side closures as to what happens when NPWS do their stuff. Anarchy!

lounge lizard's picture

To answer,

First: you go back to BJ'S and down..

Second: Haven't we lost enough trail to the NPWS already?

Hop fiend's picture

Or do we just leave it to NPWS to choose one? & have the excavator do it's thing...

Empy's picture

To BJ's still has you going the wrong way on the rest of Seuss and High Roller, trails which don't meet the standard for bi-directional.

Like all the uni-directional trails we had to choose a direction that worked best in the overall scheme and loops.

Don't think that I'm against this at all, I just don't see how we can make it work with what we currently have.

lounge lizard's picture

So what is (and do we need?) the "standard" for bi directional trails?

Long steep trails I can understand, brake ruts, washouts etc. But a lot of the flatter trails in glenrock have been, and still are, being ridden in both directions.

To the best of my knowledge/experience this hasn't caused any major conflicts.

If the trails were marked as such, (bi directional) surely that would be enough to cause people to use a little more caution and alleviate management-litigation concerns?

Empy's picture

Is mostly about 'line-of-sight' to avoid a head on. But we also need the width to then pass each other.

For the more experienced rider who wants to ride at a certain speed (fast) on tight singltrack that sensation would be lost if we changed the trail to make it safe in both directions.

Also there would be some surface hardening work needed.
- For instance the first little pinch/climb on High Roller has been rock-armoured to a standard which can cope with the speed and impact of riders climbing.
You can see now that even with the relatively small numbers of people going the 'wrong way' it is suffering, all the indications are that the wear is from people descending that section.

As for relying on people (that is everyone that ride there) to "use a little more caution" or comply with what you would think is a common sense approach - You just can't.

It's been my experience through all this that there will always be someone who has a different idea of what's appropriate.

lounge lizard's picture

Ok I give up,

Despite the great work done by yourself and others I currently find riding in glenrock a diminishing experience.

Although the sentiments expressed above are based in sound logic, the evidence suggests otherwise. People are riding things the wrong way and.....nothing untoward is happening!

The pinch washout (on High Roller) may have started by someone dragging their tyre down it, but it is now actually the smoothest, and most used, line to ride up, thus avoiding the rocks and maintaining speed.

The statement that you just cant rely on users, I find very disappointing, but unfortunately symptomatic of the current land management model that deems it necessary to save us from ourselves, whatever the cost.

As I said before I give many I have spoke to, despite the proximity of glenrock I find myself more often travelling further afield to ride. Glenrock is fast becoming a shadow of what it was, and despite asking for suggestions and input, the constraints placed on the GTA by yourself and others restricts any true inclusion / assimilation of outside ideas.

Lenny_GTA's picture

Personally, I am not a fan of bi-directional trails, but on the case of Seuss Land I have often raised that it is one trail that really lends itself to two directions.

Not so much because of the trail itself, but because of where it sits as an access point. A lot of people I know who ride up Yule Road go along Seuss in the reverse direction and onto BJ's or the Baileys Management Trail. Why they don't go onto shaft, I don't know, but they do go straight for BJ's and Baileys. Maybe its because BJ's really is the best (only) descent in the network.

That all still leaves the issue with High Roller as a Bi-Directional trail. Thats probably another issue in its self, but needs to be considered when looking at two directions on Seuss Land.

My biggest issue with it being Bi-Directional is that from there it is hard to dissuade riders from going down It Happens. thats a trail where the difference in speeds of riders going in different directions really could cause big issues. Its obviously being descended now, but not in big numbers.

Empy's picture

Any of these ideas or that I'm trying to stop dicsussion on them.

I'm just passing on what has already been discussed and the constraints placed upon us by the NPWS who have to manage the park under very bureaucratic guidelines and believe me I'm as frustrated as anyone.

Personally, I am a fan of tight singletrack, going fast and knowing (hoping) no-one is coming the other way.
But we can't have everything everywhere

Empy's picture

It's not me or Lenny or the GTA throwing up roadblocks. We have to deal with the NPWS.

Also we have present them with the opinions and idaes that best represent the majority of riders, it ain't easy!

The fact is that of all the ideas that we, or anyone else, comes up with very few of them ever actually get on the ground.
We know this - But we're still trying.

The hardest part can be having to go back and explain what we go through to the riders.

When we give an 'instant' answer it's not because it's my answer, it's because we've already discusseed it and have been given the answer and the reasons by the NPWS.

aajay's picture

I've only been in newy a year or so and have a reasonable amount of experience in trail building and going through the bureaucratic BS that land managers(NPWS or DEC in WA) make you go through. From what I've read, I think it would be easier if the GTA applies for a coal mining permit in g-rock!

One question, why are the trails where they are? Are they the remnants of the old illegal trails or were the routes planned to best utilise the space/topography in g-rock and minimise enviro impact. Do NPWS have a blanket "NO" rule on new trails? If legacy trails don't work, close'em and build better, more sustainable new ones.

I sympathise with the GTA. The priority of NPWS is not MTB trails, the priority of the LGA is not MTB trails, the priority of the state gov't is not mtb trails. If you want more traction, hassel the SH*T out of your local member. NPWS answer to the political machine which beckon/bend to common public opinion.

The closure of the Sth side sucked as that was my favourite section, real mtb riding on raw trails opposed to groomed flow trails which cater for unskilled riders and minimise land managers exposure to litigation. I don't think NPWS understand mtb riding, it's much more than riding a circuit, it's a journey, a connection with nature and an escape from society.

That's my rant. When's the next round of trail maintenance? i'll be there.

Lenny_GTA's picture

A lot of the trails in Glenrock are remnants of old use in the park, be it moto, 4WD, industrial. There is a few trails that were put in by mtb riders, but even they are questionable about where they go in terms of keeping things sustainable.

Until recently, there was a "no trail works outside the existing corridor" policy. This led to a number of compromises being made, and with the benefit of hindsight, maybe we could/should have moved on to the next trail. I'm thinking of Grass Tree, the B-Line around Kenny's chute and the top section of It.........Happens.

In all those cases the preferred solution went off the corridor and the answer was NO. We have however had a breakthrough recently with NPWS management conceding that there are times where we should have been allowed to get off the corridor. Once we close a section, within 12 months the trail is invisible and rehabilitated, and a better line could be in place. We will see how this pans out in the future though.

Hop fiend's picture

As asked before when is NPWS wanting answer on Suess Land??

Leigh's picture

@ lounge lizard, don't give up, keep going, keep making your arguments otherwise the whole process will be lost.

You have made some very good points that are spoken about by many people outside the core group who post on here and run the GTA system (and who appear to think they 'own' Glenrock and the management process), but without those views such as yours and others (and mine for that matter) being brought up on a regular basis the status quo will remain, the current direction of trail works will continue, and the experience of riding in Glenrock will continue to diminish for many.

This is all not to say that all that is and has been done to this point in terms of trail works is bad/terrible/below par etc., far from it, but how about some true consultation and collaboration (as advocates for the riding community, not as paid or unpaid representatives of NPWS) with respect to said works, some b-lines (or more a-lines to the currently built b-lines everywhere) constructed, and some (this is a big point) trail maintenance as opposed to concentrating on 'the big ticket changes'.

So don't give up, make your point(s), get involved, but most of all don't become discouraged and disillusioned by the status quo. Just remember, if nothing changes nothing changes.

Hop fiend's picture

But your gripe about "some true consultation & collaboration...."-well we have had the meeting with NPWS on that cold Wed. night yet you chose not to attend?? & then just a riders meeting at the Adamstown RSL & again you chose not to attend?? & this riders meeting was a true consultation which was to discuss the survey that was posted by Lenny & which gave some better than expected numbers & results!

Leigh's picture

@RobbieO, the consultation and collaboration needed (in my opinion) is between the GTA and the riders not NPWS, as it is the GTA who is supposed to represent the riders to NPWS.

The meeting on that 'cold Wednesday', I had family commitments so couldn't come. Is that fair?

The meeting at Adamstown RSL, well after many and lengthy conversations with Lenny, which I continue to have, I decided not to attend, especially since I was likely to yell at the person posting up (what I determined to be abusive) signs on the It Happens trail.

And of these meetings, a grand total of 2 I might add, what have been the outcomes? Any changes to management structure or the GTA succession plan that was apparently floated and spoken about? Any further development of a conversation with riders regarding proposed trail works (other than the threads posted on here)?

Survey with 'better than expected numbers'? Better than expected compared to what and by whom?

Just because someone doesn't hold your view RobbieO, doesn't mean their view should be quashed or ignored or they should be excluded from the process. This is the issue I have with the GTA as it currently stands, but hey, whatever, the process is what the process is.

When I have a bit more time on my hands I might just be able to make it to some of these 'meetings' and attend another sparsely convened build day, but until then I'll be happy to do my bit the way I am which equates to making sure the minority (if that is indeed the case) voice is heard.

Oh, and by the way, RobbieO, when I write something (be it on here, on paper, or on a tree) I sign my name. I suggest you should do the same.


Leigh's picture

I like the bottom trail, the original trail if I'm not mistaken (though I may be as I often am).

It gives a better run into the rocky corner and berms that lead out onto Scenic Drive. The run in is a bit faster, and since the trail works are reducing speed everywhere else it's nice to get a bit of wind in your hair (or through your helmet vents) every now and then. But this is, of course, only my opinion and may not be workable in the long run.

If there is concern over EEC and the environmentalists outcry over this trail, is there a way we can rework and keep this trail? Do we have a dialogue going with Landcare (or whichever group is leading the charge over the EEC concerns? Can we open up a dialogue with them to hopefully come to a mutually acceptable result? These are just questions, questions that I'm sure others (in addition to myself) would love to know have been explored by our representatives.

Hop fiend's picture

You do not like me or Mick(Empy)& this is the reason you will not attend any of these events!-maybe if you really cared about Glenrock & the direction it is going you may get over this fact & join us!-I know I am not going anywhere!

Leigh's picture

I don't have any particular problem with Mick (certainly not a personal problem), just his management style and lack of consultation with the people he is supposed to represent. I also don't like that hey is by proxy paid by NPWS, something that others who have a lot to do with the GTA are also uncomfortable with. But that's ok, I can work with that, as I'm sure he can.

As for you RobbieO, I'm getting close to losing any small fragment of respect I have for you with every post you write on this forum (or the trees in Glenrock). But that's not a personal thing, it's really regarding your attitude to others. But whatever, you can have your opinion, it can differ to mine, and that's ok, you're perfectly entitled to that.

All I'd ask is that you show the same respect for others that I am (trying to) showing for you. Don't belittle those who hold a different view to yours, try to work with people, find some common ground, include (as opposed to exclude) people. In essence, be nice.

And as I stated in my earlier post, when I have a bit more time I might just come and join you, work with you, even though I don't particularly like you (more your attitude, but hey......).

P.S. You should probably not bring others into your argument (i.e. Mick) unless you've got the ok to do so from that person first, that is assuming you didn't do that to start with.

Lenny_GTA's picture

The EEC concern is the whole trail, but more so with the lower trail. That said, the trail hasn't been locked in and the works with respect to Seuss Land haven't really been discussed with the NPWS at this point.

We don't actually know who we are dealing with at the NPWS at this point, and that may change things anyway.

Back to Lounge Lizards posts, I think this trail actually needs to be bi-directional, that would mean a bit of work to high roller etc, but given the way everyone I know who accesses the park from yule road rides, it should be considered in any rebuild. The NPWS have conceded that we should have been able to step off the corridor and I think as long as an argument is clearly articulated there is merit in asking the question. In that case, I think the lower and higher leg could have a designated direction, the rest is reasonably open visually.

It hasn't been flagged with NPWS however about any direction change or future works and I think the question needs to be asked before any decisions are locked in. As I said though, other than NPWS asking about the top two trails, there has been no discussion on this trail. My only concern is that it may well open the flood gates on descents of It....Happens, although part of me thinks that those who will ride Seuss Land both ways already are.

The EEC issue though is not so much about Environmentalists outcry, its the governing legislation that means we can't adversely impact on it. Landcare and the like have no influence or jurisdiction over EEC, that is purely the domain of the Office of Environment and Heritage. Knowingly destroying or impacting on an EEC is not a place we want to go, thats opening up a world of hurt for us, the builders and whoever signed off on the work. Logically, if we don't step off the corridor in the sensitive sections then we "should" be fine as we wouldn't be touching anything, but that is a call for NPWS/OEH to make.

Without spending a lot of cash on ecological studies, we won't be stepping off corridor in that area of Seuss Land. I don't think that means that the second trail can't be used, but the ability to reroute to fix drainage could well be a major issue.

If you look at Awaba, we had to map the vegetation structure of the entire park and the EEC areas are complete no go areas that are written into the lease agreement. So this issue isn't restricted to Glenrock. I've seen developments big and small scuttled by small patches of EEC.

Leigh's picture

This is really nice, just the sort of person who should be helping to run a community organisation don't you think. Please read on and enjoy.

Begin Message:
Participants: Leigh and RobbieO

27/10/2013 - 20:50
You do not have respect for me!-when it comes to this website/GTA/Glenrock you poke your head up every now & then to stir shit up with just words yet when it come to doing the hard yards on the ground you are not there!-I am a big boy so I would have taken your "abuse" at the RSL that night!-maybe you were just scared I might snot you one?-Leigh if you want to be involved in some direction of Glenrock I say get away from behind the keyboard & become more involved in what we have!-or are you just getting offended when riding down It Happens & seeing my signs when you clear the scrub to do the run down?-I say get off your high horse as me & Mick are not going any where soon!-If you do not like this I suggest start your own group to deal with NPWS-shit you might not know you could do better!-but from someone who talks to Lenny you must surely be in the know on how NPWS are?-so in other words be like all the other plebs-just ride or really get on board with us & work for what we can get for Glenrock!...oh & yes I do listen to other peoples thought's,idea's & solutions...problem is you do not seem to have any....

End Message.

Now I've not responded privately to this tirade, and won't be doing so. Anything and everything I have to say is and will always be public.

I can honestly say I've never ridden down It Happens, well at least not since the work was done to turn it into a climb and the signage placed both at the top and bottom of the trail.

It's nice to get some written confirmation as to who has been placing the signs up 'on behalf of the GTA' even though they have been expressly denied on this very forum to be connected with the GTA in any way whatsoever.

And RobbieO, I'm not going to threaten you like you've just threatened me (violence..... good one, very endearing to your fellow man), I'm also not going to continue to have an argument with you as it's obviously not going to get anyone anywhere.

I think you'll find though, that I have been providing suggestions for improvements etc., and trying to make sure others aren't sidelined by your attitude and lack of willingness to truly include others and differing opinions into 'your' solution for Glenrock.

pharmaboy's picture


For some reason you think you are polite, but you are far from it, and regardless , publishing private messages whatever the content is school boy behaviour that this forum could do without.

I sure don't agree with all changes in glenrock, but at least I try and influence from build days rather than Internet tirades that play the man not the issue.

I can't begin for the life of me, to imagine you influencing anyone toward your way of thinking with that caustic approach.

Leigh's picture

I'll accept that piece of criticism regarding your opinion on publishing 'private messages', though I don't agree with your premise. That's ok though, we don't need to agree on all things, and you are certainly entitled to defend your mate and his actions.

I truly hold the opinion though, that threatening behaviour is what, as you've said, 'is schoolboy behaviour that this forum could do without', but that's just my opinion. Inclusion is the key to making Glenrock and the GTA great, not exclusion and bullyboy tactics against those who hold a differing opinion.

If you'd taken the time to read and compute the nuances of the previous post by me I think you'd find that I started by encouraging other members/posters to continue voicing their opinions and not resign themselves to defeat and giving up on Glenrock and the GTA process. I fail to see how this is 'play(ing) the man (and) not the issue'.

With respect to being not so polite to RobbieO (as he was the only person in the most recent discussion), I'll accept that, but I'd like to add that I'm unlikely to respond with open arms to the sort of comments and accusations which were coming my way from RobbieO.

And just so you don't think we disagree on everything, your suggestion for the final left hander on BJs to be built like Tina's at Patterson, that's a great idea that I wholeheartedly agree with, but it'll never get through the process since it's not in keeping with natural materials etc.. Oh, and RobbieO, if a regular/monthly maintenance/build day gets up and off the ground I'm sure you'll see me at one/some (as surely they won't all clash with my work or other commitments) to work with you even though we've had, and I'm sure will continue to have, disagreements.

Don't you think it's time to become more inclusive as a group/organisation and throw away the 'us vs them mentality'? I sure do.

richo's picture

I haven't log on for a long time but I'm shore I've seen this argument before, nothing wrong with a heated debate shows people are passionate. But you guys seem to be going around in circles.As for Seuss land up or down it wont matter too much once it's been rock armored. On a side note I don't ride glenrock as much any more sense they butcher the south side I know it's not " sustainable" and all the rest but I miss those rutted out mess I been riding for years.

Hop fiend's picture

I knew you would display my private message to you(looking to get some sympathy?)-it was a question not a threat!-better stop now as we are both looking like a pair of c*@t's....

Leigh's picture

But that ship sailed a long time ago. This constant back and forward arguing should have stopped long ago, if indeed it should ever have started. Richo is perfectly correct in his assessment of this being going over old ground.

There are many points of view, they should all be listened to, considered and incorporated into the management of Glenrock. You don't own the process, just as neither do I, or Mick, or Lenny, or any other individual or group of individuals.

I would like to suggest we go further than just stopping the disagreements and arguing and look to come together in an attempt to develop better outcomes for Glenrock as a whole, as this is what should have been occurring in the first place.

Hop fiend's picture

I agree!-Glenrock SCA MTB is the biggest loser out of this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Best Mountain Bike