In relation to the debate about restrictions on vehicle access to areas such as Faulconbridge Point (see April NPJ Letters), no-one seems to have asked why NPWS has done or is proposing to do this in terms of matters other than wilderness ideology. I strongly support the prevention of public vehicular access to Faulconbridge Point because the site contains at least two threatened species, both of which have very restricted distributions and one of which is very much at risk from the effects of road maintenance and inappropriate use of recreational vehicles in its rock platform habitat.

I have also supported trail closures and vehicular access restrictions because of threats to other significant flora and fauna. Take a look at the Final Determinations of the NSW Scientific Committee in relation to many of the threatened ridgetop plants in the Greater Sydney area. You’d notice that "fire trail maintenance" or equivalent wording appears quite frequently and with good reason. Keeping such roads open to the public means that NPWS has to spend more money on maintenance (money that could be better spent on pest species management), and it means more frequent grading and drainage works which make for more sedimentation, increased opportunities for weed invasion, and a greater threat to some of the endangered flora which tends to occur in these areas. Public vehicular access also increases the risk of arson for its own sake, car dumping and burning, mechanical damage to habitat by hoons, and increased risk of pollution through leakage of petrochemicals from dumped or damaged vehicles or through deliberate discharges of wastes. For me, restricting public vehicular access or even closing trails completely is mainly about minimising risks to threatened biota.

I acknowledge the frustrations of recreationists who object to having to walk substantial distances through what they perceive as uninteresting terrain before getting access to canyons or other features, but it should be remembered that conservation estate is not primarily for recreation (at least not yet). For those who promote the "Access for All" philosophy, be warned, I will be promoting further trail gating in parts of Yengo National Park to protect an endangered plant of which only 20 individuals are known; all of them occur on the edge of vehicle trails. NPWS has already destroyed one of these plants because of the perceived need to keep publicly accessible roads in good condition due to safety concerns.

Robert and friends are advised to open their eyes and see beyond the recreational pleasures of "drive-in" canyoning etc, because it doesn’t take much effort to see "boring scrub" as intact bushland containing many native species including some of the rarest or most spectacular biota in the world.

Stephen Lord, Senior Vice President and NPA nominee on the Advisory Council, gave a detailed presentation of plans of management (POMs) progress in recent years (April NPJ p3). I share concerns with Stephen (see his last two paragraphs) wherein the mooted review of the National Parks and Wildlife Act would change the role of the Advisory Council in dealing with the submission of POMs.

After serving for many years on the Central Coast District Advisory Committee (now called Central Coast Hunter Range Region), the last 3½ years of which I was Deputy Chairperson, I have recently retired.

The "White Paper" would appear to suggest that the Advisory Council only audit the adopted plans’ determinations and not review the submissions. This would have a devastating effect on the Advisory Council’s extremely important community and scientific role. Having only the Advisory Committee to
review the submissions, would in my experience be unacceptable.

There most certainly could be inconsistencies over the whole of the State and the distinct possiblity of the decisions being swayed by people with vested or parochial interests.

For some years the Central Coast District Advisory Committee has been endeavouring to initially view and comment on submissions, and have a member meet with the Advisory Council and assist in the final process. I represented our Committee in December over Popran NP, and the process worked very satisfactorily.

I am looking forward to seeing this so-called "White Paper", for I feel there could be further issues at stake.

I totally agree that NPA and other conservation groups must oppose these proposed changes vigorously.

I refer to the article by Stephen Lord in April’s Journal (p3). Though I always enjoy reading your Journal, I can’t let this small point go without comment.

Stephen Lord uses the term "emasculation" to refer to the reduction in power of the Advisory Council. This is a term that is being used more and more in public life, and which, as a woman, I find rather insulting. What it implies is that to be not-male is to be not-good, not-powerful, not-effective.

Surely, after more than 20 years of feminism, we are all aware of the power of language and how it can subtly diminish women. I would expect that awareness in particular from people in the environment movement, who often recognise that the "masculine" model of resource use has created many of the environmental and social problems we suffer from.

So, please remember, women are here, we’re emasculated from birth, and we’re still able to be powerful, effective, persuasive, vigorous, etc, etc.

I would be happy to use the word "neutered".