Stunning creations in our minds, but to an influential minority, our trails are viewed with contempt. So far a tenuous treaty has worked in favor of mountain bikers. - Margus Riga photo
Having lived in the country for many years, I have learned to live with the local wildlife population. Some of my furry, winged and scaled neighbors are welcomed additions to my outpost in nature, but there are a number of them which, though not welcome, are grudgingly accepted. I do not despise any living thing. I believe that everything on this planet of ours has a purpose and also has the right to live and be happy - and, yes, my list includes top predators, poisonous spiders, snakes, mosquitoes, leeches and ticks. I invite nature to share everything on my property on her terms - with the exception of that which exists within a small perimeter around my house.
Like most good and well-meaning people, I can ignore a few mounds in the yard. When I start seeing them pop up in more than one place, I may become concerned. When I start losing plants, I negotiate a balanced agreement: I'll lay some traps around the plants and, even though I am getting tired of digging rodents, I'll let the outliers live and just smooth off the mounds they make where they are unsightly. At some point in this give-and-take game, I reach a tipping point. Maybe I lose a cherished cactus. Or perhaps I return from testing bikes in Europe to discover that there are mounds everywhere. At this point, concern becomes anger, my tolerance becomes resolve, and I eliminate every digging rodent within the line.
(Complain about my bad attitude towards nature here)Conflicts with unauthorized building led the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to destroy one of the better trail networks in the North Fork area near Bellingham, Washington. - Brad Walton photo
(Read about the
good end to this story.)
I claim no high or low ground here. It is human nature to avoid conflicts until they grow so large that drastic measures must be taken to solve them. Both governments and criminals exploit this inertia to tax or steal from others because time has proven that, until people reach a tipping point, we will grudgingly put up with almost any sort of threatening or illegal behavior - and if clever planning can keep the level of angst just below our tipping points, their exploitations can continue indefinitely. Most diggers are operating under that same rules. Call it "unauthorized trail construction" or "user-built trails," but when you dig on public or private land, you are wagering that dissention and disapproval created by your project will remain at levels low enough to ward of action by land managers and conflicting user groups. If you have made your jump line or trail somewhere where it evokes a minimal reaction, it may remain long enough to be forgiven - even adopted. The more likely story, however, is that other diggers will be inspired by your handiwork and move in - adding new lines and attracting more riders and diggers, until one day, after one too many helicopter rescues or encounters with angry residents, your zone will push the landowner or manager past the tipping point.
Where is the tipping point? You would have to be brain dead to believe that your secret trail is secret. Whoever he or she may be, it's a safe bet that the person who owns or manages the land you built upon knows or will soon discover that your creation exists. Localized zones have and will continue to be
shut down by land managers who are fed up with diggers, but that is a given. Consider the big picure. Is there a mounting angst nationwide? Surely large land-holders, foresters, park directors and open space conservancies have been watching the trend, and while there are billions of acres of land where a builder could dig unnoticed, it could be argued that all eyes are now focused on the high concentration of trails that are popping up in and around populated areas. The perceived danger is that a very large and conspicuous entity will eventually pop, and rule heavily against mountain bikes and unauthorized building - and if that occurs, others who have been quelling their anger and concern will follow suit. If such a thing occurs, history indicates that all of us will be driven off, not just the builders. So, today's poll is:
Also consider that The Man stands to turn a profit from commercial endeavours on public lands through increased tax revenue.
ep1.pinkbike.org/p4pb6477754/p4pb6477754.jpg
(on their pretense about environmental damage, the reality was a push to turn the site into a luxury hotel complex) finally led us to abandon that site
I no longer build trails, apart from doing some light maintenance in my local area, my efforts are so low key it flies under the radar of the local authorities, I am just smoothing / shaping and removing dead fall and leaves but not making my efforts known
Yup, and I want more money than legal professions can offer, so I steal bikes. Like it or not, we're the same, you and me.
"um no .stealing bikes affects the very people you are building for and affects your life greatly . having harder trails expands the horizon for those people and makes it better . with more options"
So your entire moral compass is guided by whether mountain bikers are hurt or helped by an action? Interesting standard, but I'll roll with it. So please consider the very scenario the article is proposing: building and riding illegal trails creates a negative image for all mountain bikers and makes it more difficult or impossible to make progress with legal efforts. These actions actually hurt the MTB community.
Timber harvest is also generally regarded (at least in the US) as a "bureaucratic nightmare." Loggers don't go wandering through the wilderness lopping off trees willy nilly, you know. A little insight could be found in the fact that loggers do PAY stumpage, and timber harvest supports a large and important part of the economy in many places (in my state, it's the 6th largest industry).
"Everyone is worried about how erosion impacts a forest. Have you seen a clear-cut?"
A bike trail will almost never have vegetation growing on it, which is the best way to prevent erosion, and has a very high potential to channelize runoff, while clearcuts usually fill quickly with new growth. There are also very high standards and regulations concerning the construction of access roads, landings, etc., and sometimes land managers even get sued when they fail to uphold those standards. So there's little incentive for a land manager to invite further impact to the resource, especially when it brings no revenue and has the potential to simply take time, headache, and legal action (not just from injured riders).
By no means am I saying that every timber harvest is good and is the best course of action for the resource. Most very likely are not. I guess I'm just saying that everything, literally every decision, when it comes to public land management, is about trade-offs. In most cases the timber industry is how stuff gets done from a management perspective, and it pays the bills, so that's going to influence the trade-offs that they're willing to make.
And the fact with the US forests is that they are a managed harvest, much like any other type of agriculture only over a larger span of time...and is regulated accordingly. Adding mountain bike trails increases access, which increases abuse. In Washington, most of our forests are private land, and although they are large corporations, they are still private land owners and reserve the right to kick you off whenever they want. Their big reason for not allowing trails is not the environmental degradation...as you say, it is pretty miniscule. Their big issue is illegal dumping and fire dangers introduced by unrestricted access. Some places have successfully worked with logging companies to allow access for MTBers, usually with the understanding that when they log, the bikers need to find a new place to play.
I remember when I thought a pirated trail was the cat's ass...now they just give mtbers a bad name and make it more difficult to reach those types of shared use agreements.
No, you can't build jumps in a state park.
Unless you live in a very cool state.
No, you can't build jumps in a state park.
Unless you live in a very cool state."
Slightly off topic here, but it's so impossible for me to undestand the American "sue, win and get rich" culture. It's against common sense so badly that I cannot understand how is that possible. Dont know if it is true but I heard a story that some guy bought a coffee from McDonald's and managed to spill it on his arm or something. He got some burn wounds from the hot coffee and then he sued McDonald's and won the case because no one didnt tell him that the coffee is hot and might burn your skin if you spill it on... Does American Mcdonalds coffee cups nowadays have a warning text on them or something?
And believe it or not, I learned a while ago that the McDonalds incident was actually legit. It was an older lady and the driver thru attendant spilled it on her. It was so hot that she ended up requiring many skin grafts. They now have to serve coffee at safe temp.
It was an old woman that burned... Read about the case here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_coffee_case
The land managers are fighting a losing battle to ban mountain bikers or disallow certain types of trails. The tipping point is coming and it will be when the managers realize we need advanced trails
www.pinkbike.com/news/alex-orban-rocking-la-fenasosa-video-2014.html
Independence? I'm English living in Scotland, hopefully for a very long time. Scotland can be a successful independent nation, no question. Will Scotland be better off out of the UK? They've not yet convinced me.
Oh, and I'm going to need some gps coordinates for those trails
BUT, when someone goes to the effort to build a trail, and the users (us mtbrs) straightline all the curves and corners then we are just as bad as the "man" shutting down trails.
It takes months, if not years, for every little piece of trail to get legalized, a decision which then can usually be reversed anytime. Don't ask first, you will be denied 99% of the time, and will only bring more (negative) attention on what you are doing.
Sorry, been there, done that.
the reality is unless trails start getting built illegally then legal trails will never start. the coucils need to see that there's interest, but unless there's already people riding in a zone there's no proof of that interest. so we build trails to bike-park standard ie b lines and drainage/signage. more work, but it's gonna lead to whatevet we build being legalised. the only trails around here that get closed off and destroyed are the ones that erode more year after year and annoy other trail users cause of rubbish etc.
So keep them new trails a secret .when they catch on say good bye to your stunts.
and then i build another trail...................................and so on and so on.
story of someone trying to clothesline cyclists with fishing wire at a designated cycle area in the south of UK
I now only ride bicycles nothing with engines any longer,, ride hard, play hard
Live to Ride, Ride to Live Fastfish
Rangers will do token enforcement now and then, often with local media in tow, but I've never been ticketed or know anyone who has.
Most hikers I've encountered have been totally cool -- probably because I always try to stop or slow to walking speed when I see them. Or maybe because in this town, everyone at least knows someone who rides... Of course you get the occasional irate hiker who says we'll "ruin it for everyone else," which makes me laugh.
What, they'll make the trail illegal?
story of someone trying to clothesline cyclists with fishing wire in Eastboure, south UK in a designated area
The problem is erosion and how to deal with it so BC Parks or whatever land owner is convinced you're not hurting the environment. Some people use rock armouring which works but makes the trail less than fun, the newer method is gold dirt and drainage which works but the trails are still torn up after rain. The method that doesn't work is telling people to "not ride in the rain" or to "avoid using big bikes on this trail" very few people will follow those rules (the "don't shit where you eat" rule isn't followed by people, I don't know why) and big bikes aren't the sole cause of erosion, people using hardtails or bikes with decreased traction and idiot riders cause erosion just the same.
On the legitimation of trails: this goes back to erosion, if the building is quality (sustainable and non-destructive) then you should have a higher chance. One exception to this is if you're building on protected land, one builder I know (in passing, not personally) wants to get a trail legitimized but it will only get the trail closed because it's on protected land.
That's my 2 cents, from a builder (well my friends do way more building than me) and rider to you.
That's a lot of Taxes generated, give us our f*cking Trails.
it´s a very controversial topic, as you can see with all the comments..
Here in Germany where I life we fight for the lagalisation of mtb trails for about ten years now..
I´ve builded at least 5 kilometers of trail here, and rebuilded it 3 times, there was not a single trail that stood longer than half a year, before it got destroyed by some park rangers.
BTW the destruction of the trail destroyed a lot more than our trail did , because they log trees over our trails to ´´SAVE´´ nature....
It´s good to let people know about such things, because this is the only way in our fckn bureoucratic society to change something