larrysmith

Again, the National Forest Service and State and Federal Parks Service are very different beasts. The former is about sustainable business practice (i.e. planting trees for a 50 year ROI), which somewhat coincides with natural resource protection. State and National Park agencies don't give a rats ass about economic development and business (other then the potential of getting sued). And, I think their independence from economic and business pressures is appropriate. That independence is why that land hasn't been clear cut in recent years. However, that independence may go away since state funding for the parks is diminishing and revenue must now be generated by park passes, which creates a conflict of interest. That is, with park passes, now they rely on volume of visitors for funding, which I think is wrong. More info on the distinction: http://www.mount-rainier-cabins.com/45-difference-between-national-parks-and-national-forests/ These issues are much more complex than they appear on the surface.

See my response to Ryan below regarding the demand argument with DNR, National and State Parks.

Thanks Ryan. You should simply edit and re-post it. You are really talented, and your skills could be put to very good use in a political advocacy documentary about MTB in Bellingham and Whatcom County. You should contact Whimps about it.

The demand argument never works with Department of Natural Resources, State and National Parks, and some times National Forestry (and I believe for a good reason). The reason is that these are conservation organizations that manage resources (and they know how to do it much better than we do). Therefore, they don't see things your way. An example to illustrate my point would be this: If the demand for fishing suddenly increased and became extremely popular in the area, do you think the Department of Fisheries would say, "Demand is up, let's lengthen the fishing season, and increase the number of fish taken per person." Of course not, they are managing a natural resource with limited supply. The same thing goes for the flora and fauna in State and National Parks. They are limited resources. Even if you don't think they are in limited supply, these organizations do, and you certainly won't gain any political ground by telling them that there is a huge demand for MTB. I guarantee if there were 500 cars driving up there per day, parking there all day, they would freak out. On another note, you are very talented at cinematography, editing, writing, and yes you're a pretty good biker. If you want to get involved in the political issues, your skills would be very useful. You should contact WHIMPS, and work with them to create a political documentary about why MTB is great for the Bellingham / Whatcom community, and how WHIMPS trail building practices are top notch in terms of environmental friendliness and safety.

Ryan, This is an important discussion to have, because I think this is a common misconception by those who don't understand the MTB advocacy issues. The demand argument is a very valid argument in many civic and private situations. For example, when communicating with the city that we need bike lanes, or even better, a separate bike commute infrastructure (critical mass). Or, when convincing private land owners (Galbraith) that cooperative organized trail building will actually reduce the number of trails, have a lower impact, and reduce the liability of the owners. You are also absolutely right, that if there suddenly became a large demand, more trails would be built. However, they would be built by private land owners or by private communities FIRST, which would be great. Private land cooperation was the method in Bend. Although Bend is a bit different, it was built on tourism. It was on private land that first trails were built. After 35 YEARS of a completely tourist driven economy, in 2010, NTA finally got Oregon State to agree to a SMALL step in private MTB trail management in state parks. http://bikeportland.org/2010/03/25/mountain-bike-group-signs-historic-agreement-with-oregon-state-parks-31192. 35 YEARS (almost twice your age)!!! of very careful political wrangling was required. (See continued)

Please don't respond to this on this thread. If you'd like to know, visit an LBS in Bellingham.

Leaving the street names off would be plenty to protect it. Agreed.

It is a really great video though Ryan; don't get me wrong.

Honestly, I'm a bit bummed that Ryan posted this. It has 9000 views in only 24 hrs. I have been exploring (getting lost) up there for years (I know I'm not that special, as Hamer's know it well). There are a lot more trails than shown on the map, and if you take a wrong turn it can be a pain in the ass (that's a warning to stay away), but sometimes you do get really lucky and find a gem. Now that this was posted, everybody's mother from Kansas is going to go up there looking for the hidden trails, lots of which are not supposed to be there. The park service is then going to have to crack down and close off a bunch of stuff because of high traffic. Worst case, they close it off completely to MTB, which they WILL do if volume gets as high as Galbraith. Remember, this is not private property. If people start getting hurt, trails get wider, and the flora and fauna are affected, the parks will be much quicker to close it than a logging company.