Trails for all Seasons

 Once they've been taken back by nature, they're no longer possible. It's only wood, rocks and dirt after all. :-)

Don't get too caught up in the translation. It's perhaps a little vague due to space at the bottom of the screen.

 My point is that you must choose whether or not your trails should, in the future, be able to be taken back by nature. When you are done using them, do you want them to stay there? This is the choice you guys are in the process of making.

Let me illustrate with two examples: stone walls, and garbage.

Trash was once a usable product, and when we are done with it, it will go to a landfill, where it will last for a very long time (or it could become litter and last for a very long time in an unsightly manner.)

A stone wall also will last for a very long time. Where I live, there are still stonewalls from 200+ years ago. Unlike trash in a landfill, however, we actually protect the stonewalls and call them national monuments. We do not consider them unsightly.

Either way, whether you think that your trail will be considered a good thing, like a stonewall or bad thing like a landfill, it is something that you guys aught to consider. I am saying this because it is clear, by the equipment that you are using, that you want your trails to last a long time. It appears to me that you want the trails to go the way of a stonewall.

I want to let you know that the same doesn't need to be true for mountain bike trails. I think we shouldn't build them to last forever - only for as long as we need them. I know sometime in the future, I wouldn't want more stone walls in the woods. They just show me that although we are in a natural place, it isn't exactly natural. Its been touched by humans. Even though there isn't anywhere left for humans to go where a human hasn't been before, we shouldn't make others feel that way. We should let them experience the excitement of exploration for themselves as well.

I'm really sorry for the magnitude of both of these comments. I feel like you guys can't really speak English that well, and it must be really obnoxious to have to translate this. Plus the comment would be more than I would want to read either way. I'm so sorry.

 Well I'm Canadian and my English is fine, thank you very much, which I think is clearly demonstrated by the article accompanying the video. I really don't see what point you are trying to make. Are you simply opposed to man-made structures in the woods? Do you really think we, or the rangers, haven't considered the long-term effects of building structures in the forest and what materials should or should not be used? Have you considered the damage to the forest through constant use in wet and flat conditions? All I can do is reiterate my point from my first reply, and that is that we are using dirt, rocks from the forest, and wood, which will eventually decay. The nails will probably be preserved in the wet, bog-like conditions to be discovered and displayed in museums in another thousand years, much like the Viking axes and boats and bodies that pop up during construction time and again in this country. Should I really feel uncomfortable with the idea of traces from the past that will be found in the future? What's the difference if those traces are left in the woods or in cities? We're creating sustainable trails to help protect the environment from overuse and erosion, and using natural materials to do so. And the fact that the materials are natural or bio-degradable aside, what is permanent about a ladder bridge? They get decommsioned all the time. They can be taken apart and dispersed a lot faster than they can be built.

Hope my English was okay for you, and no need to be sorry. I wish I could answer you better, but again I don't really see what point you are trying to make.

 My comment is too long to fit. Please read my inbox message instead.