# Consequences of unsanctioned trail building



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

A recent USFS project that proposed several significant new trails also includes a travel restriction limiting bicycles to system routes. That might sound reasonable: hard to argue with staying on the trail. But the area has many uninventoried routes that are decades old, and have been ridden for as long. They're now off-limits for mountain bikes, and the wildlife/hunting groups are talking about putting up game cameras. The reason for the travel restriction is the concern that if new trails give mountain bikers access to new landscapes, pirate trails will proliferate. It's a BS argument, but the USFS accepted it.









This isn't theoretical hand wringing. The perception that mountain bikers build unauthorized trails has cost us trail access. I write "perception" because there is very little rogue construction here. The few examples I'm aware of were quickly closed with the help of the MTB community. Most user-created routes here are made by adjacent landowners, because everyone wants their own trailhead. But the perception that mountain bikers build their own downhill trails is deeply ingrained in the conservation community.

The project I'm referencing is the Tenmile - South Helena project in the Helena - Lewis & Clark National Forest. They haven't pushed the final ROD yet, but the response to objections went out a few weeks ago. The DROD is here.

It seems like I've seen more acceptance of unsanctioned trailbuilding on MTBR recently. For a high-profile MTB forum, that should be unacceptable. I know a lot of riders disagree with this. There are still a lot of people who insist that "build it and they'll adopt it" is a viable strategy for public lands. I know it's worked in the past in a number of places, but as we mature as stakeholders, it's costing us. It makes it hard to argue that we deserve our seat at the planning table. I'm not saying advocates should accept responsibility for our entire user group any more than a hiking club would take responsibility for hikers who cut switchbacks. But I'll say this: MTB culture of celebrating rogue trail building is past its shelf life.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

evasive said:


> ...It seems like I've seen more acceptance of unsanctioned trailbuilding on MTBR recently. For a high-profile MTB forum, that should be unacceptable. I know a lot of riders disagree with this. There are still a lot of people who insist that "build it and they'll adopt it" is a viable strategy for public lands. I know it's worked in the past in a number of places, but as we mature as stakeholders, it's costing us. It makes it hard to argue that we deserve our seat at the planning table. I'm not saying advocates should accept responsibility for our entire user group any more than a hiking club would take responsibility for hikers who cut switchbacks. But I'll say this: MTB culture of celebrating rogue trail building is past its shelf life.


Couldn't agree more, and thanks for posting this.

I could go on at length, but I'll leave it at that.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Nice post evasive. Around here the going penalty with the USFS has been a $500-$1000 fine and banishment from the national forest for 6 months to a year. Plus, the black eye it gives the mtb community. At least that was what happened in the Red Rock District of the Coconino National Forest. In our district (same nat. forest) there is an ongoing investigation and the same LEO is in charge but it's hard to get any info out of the rec staff. I do know there are game cameras on several trails.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I forgot to mention it in my OP, but this is very relevant when the STC is advocating for access to Wilderness areas. Anyone who supports that had better be clear in their opposition to unsanctioned building.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Some good points made. New England rider here. So much easier to go through proper channels to get good trails done. For all concerned. And better in the long run.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Agree. I'm grateful for the people that blazed unsanctioned trails in the beginning, for without them, I'd still be riding gravelled double-track hiking paths and logging roads and thinking that's all mountain biking has to offer.

But as these paths are adopted and approved by landowners, we need to put aside that practice and take our seat at the planning table.

One of the arguments advocacy groups make to public landowners for opening up trail access, is if we give people an official place to ride and build, they will stop building rogue trails. When people keep doing that -- especially on public land where there are already approved trails and especially in an unsustainable way -- it shoots holes in that argument and makes us look selfish.

If sanctioned trails are not giving the rogue trail builders the experience they want, then they need to get involved with the advocacy groups. If they aren't at the table when trails are planned, or at the trail side with shovel in hand when work is being done, then their voice won't be heard. It's entirely possible to build challenging, scary, difficult trails, that are sustainably built and landowner approved. For proof of that, one need look no further than the North Shore Mountain Bike Association.

Closer to home, a little over a decade ago, we had one official place to ride -- Gatineau Park -- which mostly consisted of wide gravelled hiking paths. Through the efforts of the Ottawa Mountain Bike Association, other advocacy groups, and individuals, we now have several approved trail networks, including two downhill mtb trail networks, five fatbike singletrack trail networks, and a bike skills park on the way. We have very little of what would be described as "flow trail" green circle dirt sidewalks. Many of our trails are narrow, rocky, rugged, technically difficult, and even downright scary at times. Take a look at the pictures & videos I have posted in the past if you need proof.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

ray.vermette said:


> ...If sanctioned trails are not giving the rogue trail builders the experience they want, then they need to get involved with the advocacy groups. If they aren't at the table when trails are planned, or at the trail side with shovel in hand when work is being done, then their voice won't be heard. It's entirely possible to build challenging, scary, double-black diamond trails, that are sustainably built and landowner approved. For proof of that, one need look no further than the North Shore Mountain Bike Association.


This isn't a great example. As far as I'm aware all the double black trails on the North Shore were unsanctioned builds, and many are still unsanctioned.

Most (all?) public places in B.C. follow the Whistler Trail Standards, which place a moratorium on new double black trail construction.

To be honest I'm not aware of anywhere worldwide that allows double black construction (as defined by those standards) outside of a lift-access bike park.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

evasive said:


> A recent USFS project that proposed several significant new trails also includes a travel restriction limiting bicycles to system routes.


IME, that's a policy adopted by the USFS everywhere and all other land managers. No one allows bike traffic on any non-system trails, they can't. Non system trails generally have two origins, historic trails the LM either wants to go away, or non longer wants to maintain and rogue trails built by individuals outside of the proper channels.

Regardless of the value of any of those trails, the only way they become legit, or legit again is when a new master plan process is undertaken, all the trails in the area are surveyed and evaluated and during the public process you can press to include the ones that make the most sense. Until that happens, which is usually only every decade or two, they'll remain non system. And really, the most effective way to push for new trails, or the return of old ones is from within an organization with an exisiting relationship with the LM. Building a half assed rake and ride illegally won't accomplish much outside of annoying them.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

cerebroside said:


> This isn't a great example. As far as I'm aware all the double black trails on the North Shore were unsanctioned builds, and many are still unsanctioned.
> 
> Most (all?) public places in B.C. follow the Whistler Trail Standards, which place a moratorium on new double black trail construction.


AFAIK, many were unsanctioned builds, but are now authorized and maintained by NSMBA under various landowner agreements.

Here is a list of trails authorized by just the recent CMHC agreement alone:

•Severed
•New Severed Entrance
•*****foot
•Penny Lane
•Good Sir Martin
•Deer John
•John Deer
•Bridle Path (sections)
•Sticks and Stones
•Sticks and Stones Access
•Cardiac Bypass
•Academy Climb
•Salamander
•R&R
•Applicator
•Rapid Transit
•Rapid Transit Connector (RTC)
•Baden Powell - included subject to interest from BCMC or other hiking based group
•Boogie Man (sections)
•Boogie Nights (sections)
•Pangor (sections)
•Blair Range Trails (including Blair Range Trail, Blair Range Descent, Thornbrush)
•Gnomer Climb
•Forever After (sections)
•Upper Dales (sections)
•Dales (sections)
•Dales Connector
•Incline (sections)
•Corkscrew (sections)
•New Corkscrew Powerline Exit (sections)
•Water Tower Access
•Hill Drive Access

There are black diamond and double black diamond trails in that list.

Can you provide a reference to the section of the Whistler Trail Standards which prohibits black diamond trail construction? Thanks.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Harryman said:


> IME, that's a policy adopted by the USFS everywhere and all other land managers. No one allows bike traffic on any non-system trails, they can't. Non system trails generally have two origins, historic trails the LM either wants to go away, or non longer wants to maintain and rogue trails built by individuals outside of the proper channels.
> 
> Regardless of the value of any of those trails, the only way they become legit, or legit again is when a new master plan process is undertaken, all the trails in the area are surveyed and evaluated and during the public process you can press to include the ones that make the most sense. Until that happens, which is usually only every decade or two, they'll remain non system. And really, the most effective way to push for new trails, or the return of old ones is from within an organization with an exisiting relationship with the LM. Building a half assed rake and ride illegally won't accomplish much outside of annoying them.


It's not universal to NFS lands. The OHV rule specifically addresses this (response to comments p.21), declared that nationwide prohibition on cross-country bicycle use was unwarranted, and reserved the authority to local USFS officers. Previous to this, there was no restriction on cross-country travel by bicycles in this forest. Legally you could ride anywhere, just as you could walk anywhere. I think (but am not 100% certain) that this is the first such restriction in Montana. Hikers/hunters/equestrians can continue to use those routes because they aren't subject to restrictions on cross-country travel. They just can't maintain them. But... I'm left wondering just how much to throw people under the bus. Take a look at this page, for example. None of these trails are system routes, but they're advertised as numerous and well-marked.

We argued that we don't have any issue with staying on system trails, provided the forest did a comprehensive inventory of existing routes and use. That didn't go anywhere. Pushing for travel planning is the next step, but the forest is currently working on a forest plan update, so there isn't any interest in opening a travel plan process until the new forest plan is in place. The draft plan includes a recommendation for a special recreation area that would include the closure area. That would allow the USFS to give recreation equal weight as wildlife, fire, hydrology, etc. in their planning. Obviously we support that.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

ray.vermette said:


> AFAIK, many were unsanctioned builds, but are now authorized and maintained by NSMBA under various landowner agreements.
> 
> Here is a list of trails authorized by just the recent CMHC agreement alone:
> ...
> ...


They have definitely taken ownership of double black trails, but my point is that they don't permit new double black trail construction. All the CMHC stuff was built unsanctioned and authorized well after the fact, which is kind of the point of the thread.

References:

"Follow the IMBA Guidelines and the Whistler Trail Standards when planning, constructing, rehabilitating and maintaining trails. Note: consistent with Whistler Trail Standards, Expert Unlimited trails will not be authorized, however there may be some of these elements on a trail based on conditions specified by the Ministry" 
- Authorizing Recreational Mountain Bike Trails on Provincial Crown Land: Operational Policy, Rec Sites and Trails BC.

"The RMOW recognizes Expert Unlimited as a difficulty level but due to the small size of the user group, the RMOW will not pursue ownership of these trails, however there may be some of these elements on a trail provided there is a clearly defined alternate route around."
- Whistler Trail Standards, RMOW.

Various regions are going to have their own interpretation, but AFAIK all double black stuff is or was rogue.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Great thread. Subscribed!

I'm trying to wrap my relatively nOObie advocacy head around all angles of this situation as we see it happening on a pretty grand scale right here in my neck of CA. I'm part of the local advocacy group here and over many, many years, we've developed phenomenal relationships with the LM's from State Parks and the City where the majority of our trails exist but it seems the USFS aspect is a whole different animal. I believe we have some solid contacts within but there are so many changes on the inside as well as the FS just having a hugely different policy/perception of mtb's on trail.

We've just recently decided to take an initial step to get our feet wet on a pretty simple maintenance project involving an existing, non-OHV designated trail that's been getting poached and damaged by OHV's. Even though it's a legal and recognized trail in the Nat'l Forest, we are being forced to go through the NEPA process and spend thousands just to get approval to go in and simply fix the damaged areas. No reroutes, no new trail, just fixing what is already there. We're starting there with the thought of future work on an a heavily poached/unsanctioned network of trails right here on our NF lands that border the city where there are only 2 recognized trails. The unsanctioned builds are being done by a small group of regulars. They are unattached to our org. Their building has been prolific as of late. _Some of it_ done wisely but mostly not to any current sustainable standards if they were going through the process legitimately. It continues to happen unchecked and I'm just venturing a guess, because the USFS just doesn't seem to have the ability or manpower to stop it with current staffing.

I'm concerned as well as very curious what will come of this when we reach the point that USFS does decide to have a say in the matter. What's that going to do for future legitimate trail plans? I'll be watching this thread closely for ideas and experience.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

cerebroside said:


> They have definitely taken ownership of double black trails, but my point is that they don't permit new double black trail construction. All the CMHC stuff was built unsanctioned and authorized well after the fact, which is kind of the point of the thread.


Fair enough. I have removed "double black" from my post, because there has been at least one new advanced trail approved and constructed after landowner agreements have been put in place.

My point was it doesn't have to be all machine built beginner flow trail. It's possible to build more challenging stuff.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

evasive said:


> MTB culture of celebrating rogue trail building is past its shelf life.


Nah, there are plenty of rogue builders out enjoying what they've done for decades. Many of them want what you may not. Boys will be boys and all that.....


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

ray.vermette said:


> Fair enough. I have removed "double black" from my post, because there has been at least one new advanced trail approved and constructed after landowner agreements have been put in place.
> 
> My point was it doesn't have to be all machine built beginner flow trail. It's possible to build more challenging stuff.


Oh no doubt. Sanctioned builds aren't going to challenge everybody though, at least so far. Will be interesting to see if that changes when the people building double black stuff aren't able to build rogue anymore.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Following for the future train wreck.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## aero901 (Apr 11, 2012)

I think it's going to be hard to shake this perception in certain areas given mountain biking's roots are closely tied to unsanctioned trail building. Even if that's not how a vast majority of builders roll today. It might take decades to overcome and continuing the rogue building mindset further delays that. Having to work through so much bureaucracy to get new trails built can't help the situation either.



evasive said:


> MTB culture of celebrating rogue trail building is past its shelf life.


Agreed. It was probably more necessary to get things started, but now that we have a seat at the table it can only hurt future outcomes.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

aero901 said:


> I think it's going to be hard to shake this perception in certain areas given mountain biking's roots are closely tied to unsanctioned trail building. Even if that's not how a vast majority of builders roll today. It might take decades to overcome and continuing the rogue building mindset further delays that. Having to work through so much bureaucracy to get new trails built can't help the situation either.


Yes.



> Agreed. It was probably more necessary to get things started, but now that we have a seat at the table it can only hurt future outcomes.


The sport, at least where I grew up was born on rogue building. A seat at the table, hmmmm. Speaking for myself, what drew me into woods riding early on was getting away from it all. No trail heads, no maps, no trail signs or trail names, no trail markers. No marketing, no packaging, no selling, no scene. Just going out in the woods for a rip on trails that we created. Scratched in low impact, no digging. No noise. It's how I prefer to and still ride today mostly. Creating trail, for some of us, is as rewarding or more so than riding itself. And some of us have a hard time fathoming just riding and not putting in the hard work, rogue or otherwise.

It is what it is and will never go away. I highly doubt we'll see an increase in rogue building tho.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

aero901 said:


> I think it's going to be hard to shake this perception in certain areas given mountain biking's roots are closely tied to unsanctioned trail building. Even if that's not how a vast majority of builders roll today. It might take decades to overcome and continuing the rogue building mindset further delays that. Having to work through so much bureaucracy to get new trails built can't help the situation either.


No, it can't. Moab Trail Mix seems to have done a good job of getting approval for an ambitious regional system, which makes more sense from a 'spirit of the law' view of NEPA. I'll be curious to see if the Recreation Not Red Tape Act goes anywhere, but it addresses special use permits, not trail building. However it does propose that BLM and USFS managers be evaluated on the achievement of recreational goals.



HacksawReynolds said:


> Yes.
> 
> The sport, at least where I grew up was born on rogue building. A seat at the table, hmmmm. Speaking for myself, what drew me into woods riding early on was getting away from it all. No trail heads, no maps, no trail signs or trail names, no trail markers. No marketing, no packaging, no selling, no scene. Just going out in the woods for a rip on trails that we created. Scratched in low impact, no digging. No noise. It's how I prefer to and still ride today mostly. Creating trail, for some of us, is as rewarding or more so than riding itself. And some of us have a hard time fathoming just riding and not putting in the hard work, rogue or otherwise.
> 
> It is what it is and will never go away. I highly doubt we'll see an increase in rogue building tho.


Totally valid and there's a place for that. A lot of trail builders don't have any interest in the advocacy work, and that's fine. But when one undermines the other, we're collectively shooting ourselves in the foot.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

evasive said:


> A lot of trail builders don't have any interest in the advocacy work, and that's fine.


Like me. I'm not a board member. I don't attend meetings. I just do trail work. I leave the advocacy work to people who like doing that. The work they do allows me to do what I do.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

evasive said:


> Totally valid and there's a place for that. A lot of trail builders don't have any interest in the advocacy work, and that's fine. But when one undermines the other, we're collectively shooting ourselves in the foot.


Yep I hear ya. Never easy.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

ray.vermette said:


> Agree. I'm grateful for the people that blazed unsanctioned trails in the beginning, for without them, I'd still be riding gravelled double-track hiking paths and logging roads and thinking that's all mountain biking has to offer.
> 
> But as these paths are adopted and approved by landowners, we need to put aside that practice and take our seat at the planning table.
> 
> ...


Hey Ray,

Total derail, but I took a look at some of those trail and they are looking great. I'm about 80 min south of Ottawa and though not a city person myself I dig Ottawa, and my wife and daughter love it.

As an alternate riding destination I'm thinking about coming up you way this Spring. The MSM trails look good. I'm looking for technical, challenging riding. Is there a few hours worth of riding in that system? What other areas might you suggest?

You can PM to keep it off this thread.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

HacksawReynolds said:


> The sport, at least where I grew up was born on rogue building. A seat at the table, hmmmm. Speaking for myself, what drew me into woods riding early on was getting away from it all. No trail heads, no maps, no trail signs or trail names, no trail markers. No marketing, no packaging, no selling, no scene. Just going out in the woods for a rip on trails that we created. Scratched in low impact, no digging. No noise. It's how I prefer to and still ride today mostly. Creating trail, for some of us, is as rewarding or more so than riding itself. And some of us have a hard time fathoming just riding and not putting in the hard work, rogue or otherwise.


I think that's true for a lot of us. But, there is no escaping that fact that if you're building unsanctioned trails on public land, you are doing so _illegally,_ period. And doing so undermines the hard work (both advocacy and physical trail building) of others who are trying to obey the law, and not piss off land managers who may be tempted to clamp down on us as user group entirely.

I live in an area that used to see a lot of illegal trail building, and no doubt there were two sides to that argument. It was hard to get anywhere with local land managers at the time, and people got frustrated and took things into their own hands (which still doesn't make it right). And then, the FS ended up adopting a lot of those unsanctioned trails, which unfortunately sent an unintentional message that this was an ok thing to keep doing, and it will eventually get adopted - this was leading to a situation that wasn't sustainable, and could have ended badly for the future of mtn biking in our area. Luckily, with the advent of more organized trail advocacy/trail building groups, this illegal building was brought under control with the recognition that both sides were willing to come to the table and work together more through sanctioned partnerships. Very little of illegal building happens these days, and it's frowned upon by a lot of us, because we know it's endangering our continued, _legal_ access.

We are now being seen as a responsible user group by the local FS - a reasonable voice, willing to work with other interests, _and_ a group that is willing to put the sweat equity into building and maintaining these trails (which the FS loves, since they don't have the resources). This is a vastly better approach than continued antagonism between the FS and 'rogue' trail builders.

We also need to recognize that while the approval process with land managers can be frustratingly slow and bureaucratic, some of this is due to bigger-picture management concerns that we may not even be aware of, or at least concerned about, given our own myopia. If we want our sport to be sustainable, we need to acknowledge that we aren't the only important user out there, and be willing to be patient, compromise, etc. Easier said than done, I know - but it serves us well in the end.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

> The sport, at least where I grew up was born on rogue building. A seat at the table, hmmmm. Speaking for myself, what drew me into woods riding early on was getting away from it all. No trail heads, no maps, no trail signs or trail names, no trail markers. No marketing, no packaging, no selling, no scene. Just going out in the woods for a rip on trails that we created. Scratched in low impact, no digging. No noise. It's how I prefer to and still ride today mostly. Creating trail, for some of us, is as rewarding or more so than riding itself. And some of us have a hard time fathoming just riding and not putting in the hard work, rogue or otherwise.
> 
> It is what it is and will never go away. I highly doubt we'll see an increase in rogue building tho.


Took the words out of my mouth.

Its comical how little impact a scratched in, natural featured trail creates, and then how someone can make such a big deal over it. Where I live, a year of no maintenance and you can barely tell the trail is there. Compared to one pass of a logging skidder and scratched in trail is a non-issue in terms of environmental impact.

Maybe outside of metro areas where traffic is heavy its different. Also, "over done" or trails "over worked" full of man-made features that stick out of the forest like a sore thumb should be curtailed. But, in the grand scheme of things, the handiwork done by a few rogue trail builders is so inconsequential that to make issue of it is ridiculous. Abiding to ridiculous laws, well....


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Miker J said:


> Its comical how little impact a scratched in, natural featured trail creates, and then how someone can make such a big deal over it.....Compared to one pass of a logging skidder and scratched in trail is a non-issue in terms of environmental impact.


I don't think anyone is necessarily arguing what you are saying. But it's kinda missing the point the OP is making.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Smithhammer said:


> I don't think anyone is necessarily arguing what you are saying. But it's kinda missing the point the OP is making.


You are right. I just sort of spouted off.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Miker J said:


> Took the words out of my mouth.
> 
> Its comical how little impact a scratched in, natural featured trail creates, and then how someone can make such a big deal over it. Where I live, a year of no maintenance and you can barely tell the trail is there. Compared to one pass of a logging skidder and scratched in trail is a non-issue in terms of environmental impact.
> 
> Maybe outside of metro areas where traffic is heavy its different. Also, "over done" or trails "over worked" full of man-made features that stick out of the forest like a sore thumb should be curtailed. But, in the grand scheme of things, the handiwork done by a few rogue trail builders is so inconsequential that to make issue of it is ridiculous. Abiding to ridiculous laws, well....


Yep. I was on the board of an advocacy trail building org for years many years ago then helped out building sanctioned trail on and off in multiple states until a few years back when a new "heavy machinery approach" to trail building became the norm. It just doesn't sit well with me. Take all that material away that should (IMO) stay put. And then every fall, leaf blow all that organic material off of the trails? Yup just keep taking and taking. So unnecessary. And then you factor in the money that now goes into building "sustainable" trails. Crazy. Sorry I just can't like it.


----------



## radair (Dec 19, 2002)

Miker J said:


> ...But, in the grand scheme of things, the handiwork done by a few rogue trail builders is so inconsequential that to make issue of it is ridiculous...


...until a rogue trail builder builds in National Forest, or on land owned by The Nature Conservancy, or State Park land, etc. Then it's up to those of us who do advocacy work (not because we like it, because someone has to do it) to run damage control and try to repair relationships that have been years and even decades in the making. It pisses me off in a big way to have to grovel due to someone else's stupidity.

For too many years we sneaked around because we were afraid to ask. In reality, doing your homework and putting a solid proposal on the table often gets approval and gains us credibility.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

radair said:


> ...until a rogue trail builder builds in National Forest, or on land owned by The Nature Conservancy, or State Park land, etc.


Yeah that's not good.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

cerebroside said:


> This isn't a great example. As far as I'm aware all the double black trails on the North Shore were unsanctioned builds, and many are still unsanctioned.
> 
> Most (all?) public places in B.C. follow the Whistler Trail Standards, which place a moratorium on new double black trail construction.
> 
> To be honest I'm not aware of anywhere worldwide that allows double black construction (as defined by those standards) outside of a lift-access bike park.


https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/tiger-mtn

https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/duthie-hill

https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/summit-ridge

https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/galbraith


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

cerebroside said:


> To be honest I'm not aware of anywhere worldwide that allows double black construction (as defined by those standards) outside of a lift-access bike park.


I haven't read the Whistler trail standards, but Blackrock Freeride area in Oregon also has some non-lift access free-ride trails that qualify as double black if not Red/Pro Line.

Blackrock Mountain Bike Association | Blackrock Trails and BRMBA Crew

https://www.trailforks.com/trails/grannies-kitchen/
https://www.trailforks.com/trails/run-around/
https://www.trailforks.com/trails/sunday-stroll/
https://www.trailforks.com/trails/brake-check/

When BRMBA originally rated their trails they only used green, blue, and black designation, so they didn't use any designations higher than single black diamond. BRMBA is in the process of installing new signage and several of the trails currently signed as single black diamond are being upped to Double Black.

As a frame of reference, I've ridden all the features on Fade to Black and Dirt Merchant at Whistler Bike Park (both rated double black) without issue, and I've ridden nearly every double black tech trail in the park (haven't gotten to Lower Joyride and Clown Shoes yet), but there are numerous features at Blackrock that I have not, and may never hit.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Unsanctioned trail building in my town led to the IMBA chapter folding about 8 years ago and nearly killed mountain biking altogether in city parks. It fragmented our community and lines that were drawn back then are still in effect today, with deep suspicion between parks friends groups, mountain bikers and other trail user groups. A lot of damage has been undone, but creating a unified voice for advocacy has pretty much been impossible. To top it off, the squad that nearly got the kibosh put on mtbs, are still building their poorly constructed and unsustainable fall line trails in the park, putting legitimate trail building by builders from the MTB community in constant jeopardy.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Gigantic said:


> Unsanctioned trail building in my town led to the IMBA chapter folding about 8 years ago and nearly killed mountain biking altogether in city parks. It fragmented our community and lines that were drawn back then are still in effect today, with deep suspicion between parks friends groups, mountain bikers and other trail user groups. A lot of damage has been undone, but creating a unified voice for advocacy has pretty much been impossible. To top it off, the squad that nearly got the kibosh put on mtbs, are still building their poorly constructed and unsustainable fall line trails in the park, putting legitimate trail building by builders from the MTB community in constant jeopardy.


So was unsanctioned trail building ever an issue in the parks before the IMBA chapter was formed in your town?


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Curveball said:


> https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/tiger-mtn
> ...





twd953 said:


> I haven't read the Whistler trail standards, but Blackrock Freeride area in Oregon also has some non-lift access free-ride trails that qualify as double black if not Red/Pro Line.
> ...


Nice! Not familiar with the history of those trails, but if those are sanctioned builds on public trail systems then it's great that that people are pushing the envelope.

The Whistler guidelines are actually pretty restrictive. You can google for the PDF, but the main things that end up making stuff a double black by their definition would be mandatory gap jumps, mandatory drops over 1 m (3.3 ft), mandatory bridges over 3 m (10 ft) high with no fall protection, mandatory grades over 120%.

Edit: Whistler bike park is private and uses different guidelines; Whistler Trail Standards are for the valley trails on public land managed by RMOW (Resort Municipality of Whistler).


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

cerebroside said:


> Nice! Not familiar with the history of those trails, but if those are sanctioned builds on public trail systems then it's great that that people are pushing the envelope.


Indeed, those are sanctioned trails and that's not a complete list for Washington by any means. I left off quite a few.


----------



## cerebroside (Jun 25, 2011)

Curveball said:


> Indeed, those are sanctioned trails and that's not a complete list for Washington by any means. I left off quite a few.


Good to hear, hopefully they manage to permeate north of the border a bit. 

I've always been interested in riding Washington, but the cool stuff I see down there tends to be unsanctioned (Xanadu, Surf'n'Turf, etc).


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

*Reason vs Rules...*



radair said:


> ...until a rogue trail builder builds in National Forest, or on land owned by The Nature Conservancy, or State Park land, etc. Then it's up to those of us who do advocacy work (not because we like it, because someone has to do it) to run damage control and try to repair relationships that have been years and even decades in the making. It pisses me off in a big way to have to grovel due to someone else's stupidity.
> 
> For too many years we sneaked around because we were afraid to ask. In reality, doing your homework and putting a solid proposal on the table often gets approval and gains us credibility.


Agree. Over the top, rogue trail building, in truly sensitive areas, that significantly endangers productive, established relationships with land managers must absolutely be avoided.

One can argue that situation is representative of an extreme form of the situation.

On the other end, some areas exist where user pressure is low and open land is abundant, and land managers are very lenient with trail building. In those situations you may have a few individuals building very low impact, visually appealing, natural featured trails, that blend with the forest. Many of our local trails fit this. They are rather old, school, techy, and aside from their twisting nature resemble narrow hiking paths and game trails rather than dirt sidewalks. One Fall's worth of leaves left to lie and you would not even know those trails are there. Most trails are "scratched" in and evolve over years with small changes and routine maintenance. Not to sound too corny, those trails are very "organic".

Unfortunately, I've seen where you will have a "club" get involved, led by a few who may have read something like the "Biker's Guide to Trail Building". They eagerly engage the land managers and embark on large scale operations. Workers are recruited and miles of wide, high impact, visually disruptive, dirt sidewalk are then carved into the forest. Wooden ramps, nails, and chicken wire coated planks pepper the scene. Signage hanging off trees around every other corner.&#8230;

&#8230;The land managers see the impact; the Club feels empowered - Now, all of a sudden you have "rules" made by those groups.

These rules and thinking ignore the miles of pre-existing, natural featured, organic trails, that have existed for years, and have rightly flown under the radar, or the land manager had no issue with such low impact operations. What becomes of the builder who've followed that approach, and who still wishes to? They become criminalized.

Now, instead of "scratching" in and maintaining low impact, natural trails, they are forced to fill out forms and sit in meetings. They trade in a strong back and callouses for politicking. They are reduced to pleading their case so that maybe someone will "allow" them to rake in a 6" wide path on public ground their taxes pay for.

It is sad when you see rules trumping reason.

If you need rules because a particular area has a high population of too many unreasonable people, those rules become necessary evils at best. But rules when rules are not needed... poison.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Miker J said:


> Agree. Over the top, rogue trail building, in truly sensitive areas, that significantly endangers productive, established relationships with land managers must absolutely be avoided.
> 
> One can argue that situation is representative of an extreme form of the situation.
> 
> ...


That's a long diatribe of justification.

In the past, and our sometimes unfortunate present, people have illegally built trails on public lands or land that doesn't belong to them. They've ostracized the mtbr's in their area in the minds of all other user groups. This creates an uphill battle of legitimacy. In many places, clubs and groups have formed in response to being told no over and over. They've had to start from a hole. Digging themselves out of it. Sometimes they've been able to go back and get illegal trails sanctioned and recognized. Now they maintain them and work through proper channels to get new trails built. Hopefully trails that are sustainable. Almost my entire riding area is based on what were once illegal trails. We are very fortunate that our regional BLM office has recognized our local chapter as a force for good in the area. All of our new trails are sanctioned, signed and maintained. They are also extremely popular. Continuing to advocate for illegal trail building or even justifying it just sets everyone back when we meet with land managers. We are often our own worst enemies.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Miker J said:


> Agree. Over the top, rogue trail building, in truly sensitive areas, that significantly endangers productive, established relationships with land managers must absolutely be avoided.
> 
> One can argue that situation is representative of an extreme form of the situation.
> 
> ...


Yup.


----------



## alexbn921 (Mar 31, 2009)

In my area all single track is illegal and was an unsanctioned build. Land managers have no intresses in bikes and active shut down established trails. It's become a game of whack a mole.
Not how I want to it to be or how it should be. Everytime there is a meeting mountain bikers outnumber all other users combined. Hopefully the tide will turn by the time my kids are able to ride in the hills around my house.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

alexbn921 said:


> In my area all single track is illegal and was an unsanctioned build. Land managers have no intresses in bikes and active shut down established trails. It's become a game of whack a mole.
> Not how I want to it to be or how it should be. Everytime there is a meeting mountain bikers outnumber all other users combined. Hopefully the tide will turn by the time my kids are able to ride in the hills around my house.


That's really unfortunate.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I think this is a good example of a poorly made rogue trail. Not only was it not authorized by authorities. but the builders did not follow proper sustainability guidelines, with fall line sections. I hope to close this thing down before it jeopardizes the construction of our new paved flow trail.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Silentfoe said:


> That's a long diatribe of justification...
> 
> ...Continuing to advocate for illegal trail building or even justifying it just sets everyone back when we meet with land managers. We are often our own worst enemies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Like I opened with...

"Over the top, rogue trail building, in truly sensitive areas, that significantly endangers productive, established relationships with land managers must absolutely be avoided."

This is not a black and white issue. Its not about the righteous following God given commandments vs the savage, evil, rogue builder.

There are places where the environment and evolution has resulted in a clear cut need for regs and they are reasonable and productive. If that is your case, excellent and thanks for you work. Personally, I would not, nor would I advocate, rogue building there.

Other places are not all like that. It is evolving and grey and some regs may not be reasonable nor productive.

Diatribe - hmmmm. I'm going to have to think about that.

You are making a stretch by suggesting I am advocating or justifying illegal trail building. (Personally, I do work with the local land manager and all is good.) But, if a rule is BS and counterproductive a builder should find a way around that - ideally by formal chanels.

What my post was getting at was we need to take a look at what we are calling "illegal" and why, and how these rules are being made and by who.

Question everything.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

If yer gonna create rogue, pick your areas wisely, be wicked discrete, and keep it primitive. No digging, no flagging, no raking leaves in the fall. Ride them in. LOW impact.


----------



## drew p (Jan 20, 2012)

bpressnall said:


> I think this is a good example of a poorly made rogue trail. Not only was it not authorized by authorities. but the builders did not follow proper sustainability guidelines, with fall line sections. I hope to close this thing down before it jeopardizes the construction of our new paved flow trail.


Not everyone is blessed with your amazing terrain bryan 

The problem is when 9 million people live within a relatively short drive, and those scratched in trails become 10-15' wide scars.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Hi Drew! I always get busted posting on these forums by people that know me, and then I feel embarrassed! You talking about UCSC? Don't worry, pretty soon all the trails will merge together and there will only be one trail. We are lucky here, as we don't have a free for all building scene. Having people that don't want to do trail work can be a blessing! I wanted to ask you how is that project you were working on coming along? Did you find a suitable route? Also, there is a new trail near your Mother in law's house- not a Demo Flow, but pretty flowy compared to that video.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Rake-and-ride "scratched in" trails can survive the test of time. Even ones that are poorly situated on flat terrain or straight down the fall line of a hill. So long as they are kept a secret.

But mountain bikers have never been good at keeping secrets.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Can we dispel with the myth that the only type of trail that can be built with IMBA guidelines is a machine-built flow trail and dirt sidewalks?

It's possible to build challenging trail following these guidelines.

Don't like IMBA? That's ok. Follow some other organization's trail manual if you prefer. They all pretty much espouse the same principles of sustainable design.

Sustainable design does not equal boring trails.
Sustainable design does not equal machine built trails.
Sustainable design does not equal high-impact building.


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

ray.vermette said:


> Can we dispel with the myth that the only type of trail that can be built with IMBA guidelines is a machine-built flow trail and dirt sidewalks?
> 
> It's possible to build challenging trail following these guidelines.
> 
> ...


_"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ray.vermette again."_


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

ray.vermette said:


> Rake-and-ride "scratched in" trails can survive the test of time. Even ones that are poorly situated on flat terrain or straight down the fall line of a hill. So long as they are kept a secret.
> 
> But mountain bikers have never been good at keeping secrets.


Ya well the beauty of scratched in trails is that even if found, ridden hard and degraded over time, the initial investment of time, energy, and impact that went into them was so minimal that it's nothing to completely bury old degraded ones and create a new route in their place. Minimal work and yer keeping that singletrack single.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

That is baloney. The problem with scratched in trails is that they do poorly over time. They become conduits for erosion. And hence the reason that newer trails are being built which are engineered for much better sustainability.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> ...completely bury old degraded ones and create a new route in their place. Minimal work and yer keeping that singletrack single.


If only all rogue builders were as environmentally conscious as you.

Many don't bother fixing their mistakes, or learning from them. They just go on to build more rogue trail, making the same mistakes, and blaming other rider's behavior, or Strava for their trails' demise, rather than asking themselves what they did wrong.

Whatever happened to doing something right the first time?


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I think all trails should be built with the idea that it will eventually get heavier use and that you shouldn't plan on rerouting it once it becomes eroded. Do it right the first time. And yes, sustainable, "IMBA type" trails can be knarly and minimalist- take Blackjack at Buffalo Creek, CO as an example. It just seems that most committee made trails tend to be on the mellow side and the trails IMBA showcases in their newsletters usualy tend to be wide, obtrusive, machine built types trails. I personally like trails that are a little more like the trails shown in the photos above. How could anyone get upset if they found a nice trail like that to hike on?


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

bpressnall said:


> I personally like trails that are a little more like the trails shown in the photos above. How could anyone get upset if they found a nice trail like that to hike on?


If the rigid rule followers/makers at your local club felt it broke their rules you'd see plenty upset.

Now, before anyone attacks me and suggests I'm advocating illegal building, that is not what I'm doing. Just trying to point out there are many who feel rules that prohibit such benign building -- in areas that can sustain such ventures -- should be questioned.

You know, the more I think about it, I'm likely just coming from a very different environment that most others on this board. I've been lucky enough to live in areas where I did not have to contend with many others in the woods when it came to trail building. Its been great to just get out and build and ride without dealing with a bunch of rules and regs, signs and threats, conflicts and meetings, etc. Sort of the reason most of us got into mountain biking 20 plus years ago.

Builders who have to contend with those nasty issues are forced to navigate the BS just so they can volunteer and scratch in the dirt. Thanks for your work and expertise in being able to still get trails built. I'm not that savvy politically so I'm going to try to stick to building in less populated, less sensitive areas.

Its clear there are areas that need rules, regs, and red tape to keep building under control. Other areas, not so much control is needed.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

endo_alley said:


> That is baloney. The problem with scratched in trails is that they do poorly over time. They become conduits for erosion. And hence the reason that newer trails are being built which are engineered for much better sustainability.


Nah not in my 30 years experience. Which includes areas that see up to hundreds of riders per week since the early 90's. It's all about proper routing of the trail given the lay of the land that yer working with.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

bpressnall said:


> I think all trails should be built with the idea that it will eventually get heavier use and that you shouldn't plan on rerouting it once it becomes eroded. Do it right the first time. And yes, sustainable, "IMBA type" trails can be knarly and minimalist- take Blackjack at Buffalo Creek, CO as an example. It just seems that most committee made trails tend to be on the mellow side and the trails IMBA showcases in their newsletters usualy tend to be wide, obtrusive, machine built types trails. I personally like trails that are a little more like the trails shown in the photos above. How could anyone get upset if they found a nice trail like that to hike on?


Exactly. Those rake n rides that I created and posted pics of are so low impact that they are barely visible, ride awesome and incorporate many fun rock features thruout the entire loop. Have another 300 acre parcel that abuts that^^^^^^600 acres that is ready to be walked and scouted for another 6 or so miles of tight natty rake n ride that should begin to take shape this spring. Actually my trails aren't even rake n ride. They are literally clip/clear and ride. Let the tires do the work.👍


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Switchblade2 said:


> I just got finished reading all the posts and I have to agree with Hacksaw, a properly routed trail with minimal build can be as sustainable as any club built landmanager approved trail.


What's the relevance to the topic at hand?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

2 bench cuts in 30 years, one was on the Cape almost 20 years ago in a very steep kettle hole where I thought it would be fun to route the trail and one was this early winter using just a rake and some large stone found in the woods nearby. Normally I keep ALL of my trails away from any wet or low areas which is why I typically only build during the wettest times of year so I can clearly see where the trouble areas might be. ZERO of my trails have ever needed drainage or water bars of any sort. Will post pics of both bench cuts in a bit.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Have only used a shovel once and that was on the Cape bench cut in the late 90's.

Here's that cape bench cut almost 20 years later pic taken last year. Still nice and tight. True singletrack. This is just a short portion of the bench. Hillside is MUCH steeper than it looks.








And here's the short bench I raked in recently using a very conveniently felled tree to rake the dirt from the hillside against and along. There was NO other option but to bench this spot as the trail skirts a gnarly wetland on one side and impossibly steep hill on the other and someone's back yard just beyond that lol 







And with snow while slowshoe grooming


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> A recent USFS project that proposed several significant new trails also includes a travel restriction limiting bicycles to system routes. That might sound reasonable: hard to argue with staying on the trail. But the area has many uninventoried routes that are decades old, and have been ridden for as long. They're now off-limits for mountain bikes, and the wildlife/hunting groups are talking about putting up game cameras. *The reason for the travel restriction is the concern that if new trails give mountain bikers access to new landscapes, pirate trails will proliferate.* It's a BS argument, but the USFS accepted it.
> 
> *It's a reason, not the reason. They are responding to concerns regarding the effect bicycle traffic may have on big game species. That was the first reason given. The FS stated they are proposing several significant new trails. You will now have new trails and they want to close some old user built trails and state there is a concern about big game species. The FS has a history of using owls or game migration routes to stop trails from being built or to force reroutes. Not much you can do about that. It hardly seems like an example of you losing access because of unauthorized trail building. You are actually gaining access to "significant" new trails.*
> 
> ...


*
Not even close to past it's shelf life. It's what got us to this point and it will continue to help solve problems local groups are incapable of solving. *


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Harryman said:


> IME, that's a policy adopted by the USFS everywhere and all other land managers. No one allows bike traffic on any non-system trails, they can't. Non system trails generally have two origins, historic trails the LM either wants to go away, or non longer wants to maintain and rogue trails built by individuals outside of the proper channels.
> 
> *I do not trust your experience. You are using language like "no one allows bike traffic on any non-system trails". That is not true. They do allow bike traffic on non-system trails. I see it every week in several different locations. So when someone starts typing and using your words, I know they are uninformed and trying to mislead people.
> 
> ...


*
You are not the person who can say what is the most effective way to get new trails. Your opinion is suspect to me because of how dogmatic you are.

There are always going to be problems that will not get solved by well intentioned people holding meetings. Especially when those people are government employees. I do volunteer trail maintenance weekly. Sanctioned even. I took a simple approach to making a 60 foot wide wash more friendly to bikes. It had maybe 16" of dry sand in it that forced riders to dismount and walk through it. It annoyed most of them. The solution was simple. Buy a transfer shovel and get to work. Move the sand until you get down to mineral soil and create a 36" wide path for bikes to pass through. If it rains hard, some of that sand might be redistributed back across the new route. OK, so go back once or twice a year and clear it off. Dozens of riders have expressed gratitude for making their experience more enjoyable. But what about the land manager? They said to cease and desist. Do not move any more sand, even just a couple feet to create a corridor. Why is that, you ask? Because some lonely compliance person sitting behind a desk downtown heard about sand being moved in a wash on government land and discovered a federal law prohibiting the rerouting of any water source. Sort of like when the Hatfields stole water from the McCoys by naming up the stream and rerouting it. Seriously, this is what some city employee came up with.

So I pointed out something. I said that before I moved the sand 18" from center line to the left and to the right, trail users had been coming through the wash on foot, on bikes, and on horse. Each time they did, they moved the sand slightly to one side or the other, creating a low spot. Then, on occasion, the city park rangers would drive a John Deer Gator down the trail and drive through the wash, also moving the sane several inches from where it's tires pushed down on it. So my question to the compliance person was; how many inches can the sand in that wash be moved before it violates the federal law against rerouting a moving source of water (the wash has water in it maybe 2-3 days out of the year, on average). They are not entirely sure what the law allows and so for now, they just want to play it safe and stop all moving of sand, even if it is just 18".

That is the quintessential example of why the MTB community needs fixers. They need a person or persons who solve problems discreetly. The land manager may notice and may never notice. And they probably just don't care. They often tell me that. They say they don't care what we do, but they cannot authorize certain trail improvements. Then they wink twice, letting me know that if certain improvements happen, there is no likelihood the people doing it will get in any trouble.

So you go on lecturing everyone on what is right and what is wrong and why people who solve problems outside of the rules are a threat, and those of us that are fixers will keep doing what we do, often with the unofficial blessing of land managers, and with great praise from trail users. We do not need your approval. I suppose we would prefer you quit spreading false information on this site, though. You might encourage riders into thinking it serves the greater good to rat out trail fixers and problem solvers so they don't jeopardize your ten years of meetings with land managers.*


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Did you consider that the reason you have that degree of oversight is because of the history of illegal trail building? I can think of a number of districts, in different forests and regions, where the rec trails coordinator has told groups they had a free hand to do what they want within the general trail corridor.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Boris Badenov said:


> *
> The solution was simple. Buy a transfer shovel and get to work. Move the sand until you get down to mineral soil and create a 36" wide path for bikes to pass through. If it rains hard, some of that sand might be redistributed back across the new route. OK, so go back once or twice a year and clear it off. *


I wonder if building a proper turnpike is not the most logical solution to fixing this wash problem.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

Switchblade2 said:


> I just got finished reading all the posts and I have to agree with Hacksaw, a properly routed trail with minimal build can be as sustainable as any club built landmanager approved trail. For some reason it seems like many club built land manager sanctioned trails need full wide bench cuts to bring them to a system status.
> 
> I doubt Hacksaw's trails have much bench cutting. He probably does a good job scouting out the terrain and routes his masterpieces where very little if any dirt work is required to make the route fun to ride.
> 
> Why clubs land managers like to spend tons of time and money on constructing trails needs some discussion.


I like rake and ride trails as much as the next guy, they're a ton of fun to ride and a heck of a lot easier to build. There's a larger reason that you guys are overlooking about why wider, machine-cut benches are required by land managers, for sustainable incorporation into the trail system: in most public parks in my city, the official system of trails are by default, Multi-User Trails. This means that the trails have to be safe, durable and sustainable with heavy traffic by not only bikes, but hikers and equestrians as well. Unfortunately, this means cutting 3' wide benches on sideslopes with an SK or a Mini-Ex, multiple grade reversals, climbing turns instead of switchbacks and closing fall line trails that may be super fun to ride, but are susceptible to erosion and a potential to harm the watershed.

There are 1.1 million annual visitors to one of the city parks I build in, with over 50 miles of trails, about 25 miles of which are open to mountain bikes, (of which maybe 2,000 are mountain bikers and a couple dozen people on horses). in this park, rake and ride trails simply don't work as multi user trails: they would degrade quickly under traffic, with poor sight lines & unsustainable climbs. User conflict would be off the charts, with limited opportunities for passing resulting in close calls between hikers, horses and bikes. In other parks where I volunteer, rake and ride trails are possible, simply because of fewer numbers of park users.

However, having a growing group that is relatively affluent, mostly male and white, using urban park facilities and spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours building and maintaining trails in the park has had unintended consequences. 15 years ago, this particular park had 8-10 miles of primitive and technical trails and was also home to tent camps of homeless people, packs of wild dogs and was a haven for illicit drug use, prostitution and vandalism. the trails were mostly user built on an ad hoc basis. About 10 years ago, the parks and rec department took notice and reached out to the people responsible for building and maintaining a bulk of the trails. A friends group was established and a plan was laid to maintain the trails on an official basis. Some of the trails had poor drainage or were prone to erosion, and were rerouted, using the rake and ride method as before, to maintain the character of the original trails. there were a few complaints about the trails being dumbed down, as a couple of challenging, but erosion-prone sections were rerouted, but for the most part, hardly anyone noticed.

in the past 4 years, mountain biking in my city has exploded, with the numbers of riders growing exponentially. Along with the increase of riders in the park, came a marked decrease in vandalism, illegal drug use, homeless inhabitation and other illicit shenanigans in the park. This was not unnoticed by the city, and the rightfully sought to capitalize on the gentrification of this 150 year-old, urban park that is almost entirely surrounded by underprivileged neighborhoods. Building on the volunteer work, the city sought to invest in the park to make it more accessible to the immediate neighborhood surrounding the park, as well as the city at large. Part of that, included building a multi-user, equestrian and hiker accessible trail that followed an abandoned trolley line that ran trough the park from the 1880's through the late 1940's. Unfortunately, that proposed line cut through a bulk of the already existing rake and ride trails, and they were slated by the park managers to be abandoned. Fortunately, the park's friends group, led by mountain bikers, pushed back, and a compromise was reached, preserving about 80% of the rake & ride trails, building a machine built, "flow trail" that is accessible to pedestrians, equestrians and riders of all skill levels. Because of this new trail, park use from the surrounding neighborhood has gone up, while crime has continued to decline.

Another volunteer group built a pumptrack in the park and about 2 miles of flow trails behind it. The pumptrack has been popular with kids from the surrounding neighborhood, particularly because they also have a fleet of box bikes available for loan. a number of these kids have in turn, gotten into mountain biking, transitioning from the pumptrack to the flow trails behind it, to the multi user trail running through the park and onto the more technical, legacy rake and ride trails. because of the increased variety of trails available, the park has also become a popular training area for a couple of the local high-school NICA mtb teams, local Little Bella's chapter, and other cycling outreach organizations.

One may take the myopic view and bemoan the loss of primitive trails and the increased bureaucracy created by clubs and land managers building trails that ultimately results in dumbing them down, or you can look at the opportunity and investment in public lands that comes as result of that, ultimately opening up our sport for more people, creating safer, more environmentally sustainable parks and ensuring that those trails will be open and available for generations of trail users, not just a small group of bros.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Gigantic said:


> However, having a growing group that is relatively affluent, mostly male and white, using urban park facilities and spending hundreds, if not thousands of hours building and maintaining trails in the park has had unintended consequences. 15 years ago, this particular park had 8-10 miles of primitive and technical trails and was also home to tent camps of homeless people, packs of wild dogs and was a haven for illicit drug use, prostitution and vandalism.


You need to be careful what you post buddy. If word gets out that more mountain bikes trails means no more hookers and blow, there may be riots.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

twd953 said:


> You need to be careful what you post buddy. If word gets out that more mountain bikes trails means no more hookers and blow, there may be riots.


We're talking West Philly here: hookers and heroin.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Boris Badenov said:


> *
> You are not the person who can say what is the most effective way to get new trails. Your opinion is suspect to me because of how dogmatic you are.
> 
> So you go on lecturing everyone on what is right and what is wrong and why people who solve problems outside of the rules are a threat, and those of us that are fixers will keep doing what we do, often with the unofficial blessing of land managers, and with great praise from trail users. *


If you're going to lecture someone about not telling you what will or won't work in your situation, then you don't get a free pass to keep telling everyone else that what you think is working great for you and switchblade in Flagstaff and Sedona universally applies to everywhere else in the country (or other countries for that matter).

Unauthorized trail building undoubtedly has played a huge part in the history of how many of the trails most of us love to ride came into being. That is undeniable. In certain situations working outside of the official process can still yield results, even if the process may be a bit messy and uncomfortable. However, you can't dismiss the fact that it can also cause problems.

In my area, we've been developing a high profile trail system with BLM and using that as an example to other local land managers (USFS, a university research forest, and a private timber company).

We had some very public campaigns to help get the word out to the community to attract more volunteers and raise funds to buy tools and such, and have done a lot of outreach to those other land managers/owners.

After seeing what we have accomplished, 2 things happened. First, all three of those other land managers/owners approached us and asked us if we would build sanctioned trails on their lands as well. The second thing that happened was a huge explosion of unsanctioned, and blatantly obvious trail building on the university forest, and the adjoining private timber company land. Both of those lands have had unsanctioned trails on them dating back many decades (and built by moto riders, hikers, trail runners, equestrians, and mountain bikers) that for the most part have been tolerated and flown under the radar. That is, unless someone did something high profile like building rickety north-shore stunts out of twigs and old rusty nails.

About the time the unsanctioned trail building hit its peak, with new trails popping up in the most obvious and in your face locations, we had an ice storm that brought down thousands of mature Douglas Fir trees, and some genius went out on the private timber company land with a chainsaw and cut out a bunch of those 30"+ diameter trees across an unsanctioned trail. Those trees were slated for salvage logging, and having chunks cut out of the middle cost the timber company tens of thousands of dollars.

Around that same time, somebody cut a couple of new unauthorized trails on that timber companies' land, one of which was through an open clearcut and painfully obvious, and another through some sensitive habitat for an endangered butterfly species. The timber company is responsible for ensuring that habitat isn't degraded, so this put them in a bad spot.

So, as a result, the timber company shut down all trail access to their adjacent lands and got the county sheriff involved to enforce the closures. Members of our organization have had a very positive relationship with this company for nearly 30 years and they have allowed us to hold multiple yearly mountain bike races on their land, on trails they allowed for that purpose.

The university forest management, also seeing similar issues with an explosion of high profile unauthorized trail building, some of which caused damaged to some decades long research studies, similarly started clamping down on the unauthorized building, started putting up trail cams to catch builders, and also got the County Sheriff involved.

Now, we have one of the Sheriff's deputies that has a hard on for catching mountain bikers and unauthorized trail builders, and he has ticketed a number of mountain bikers (and supposedly arrested one who got lippy with him) on the timber company land. He regularly shows up to the trailhead of the fully authorized BLM trail system (often when we are at the trailhead for officially sanctioned build days), and he tries to lecture and intimidate trail builders and mountain bikers, bragging about how he's going to catch them. This is on the other end of the county, 30 miles from where the unauthorized trail building was happening.

So, a situation where we had several land managers/owners practically begging us to build and maintain trails for them, has deteriorated into one where those of us that are going the official route are now having to work our asses off to regain their trust, and literally and figuratively repair the damage that was done, and trail projects are now getting hyper scrutinized.

So, while you may want to celebrate all unauthorized trail builders as the white knights that give us every opportunity to ride, our experience has been that times have changed, and in an age of strava heat maps that any land managers can look at to see what is going on their land, and social media (and internet forums) where people just can't help bragging about their activities, there is little left that can qualify as under the radar. And a new crop of unauthorized trail builders that don't have the common sense not to cut in a new unauthorized trail that drops onto a fire road 10 feet from the most popular trail head in the area that sees many thousands of multi-use visitors, and a number of other bonehead moves that I illustrated above, have not only put the brakes on years of efforts to gain land manager trust, but they have caused closure of a lot of miles of older unsanctioned trails that long predate their activities. And they put use of most of the other unsanctioned/social trails in the area at risk as well, as everything is now scrutinized.

So, if you have a situation where you are talking with the land managers and they are giving you the unofficial wink and nod to do what you do, I absolutely applaud your efforts.

But, we, as a MTB community, just have to be very aware that high profile unsanctioned trail building that feeds the outlaw mountain biker image often times doesn't do us any favors.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Is that the name of one of your trails? I like it!


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

I see a common evolution from illegal rogue building by individuals to legal sanctioned trail networks built & maintained by advocacy groups, landowners, and professionals.

Communities are at different points in that evolution due to various factors: population, availability of land, how well the mtb community is able to organize, and responsiveness of the landowners.

When mountain bikes first started showing up in numbers in my community (Ottawa) around the mid/late-80s, riders naturally gravitated to Gatineau Park; a large mountainous and wooded natural conservation park that abutted a greater metropolitan area numbering around 1 million.

Many of Gatineau Park's hiking trails were originally carved by early settlers over a century ago, and later by cross-country and back-country skiers decades ago. While perfectly fine for winter use, many of these trails were (and still are) not sustainably built for summer use. Many are built on too steep a grade, with no design consideration for water drainage or user conflict.

These trails saw very light use during the summer, but with the addition of mountain bikers, summer usage soared dramatically and poorly built trails fell apart. There was no local advocacy group to defend mountain bikers, or to encourage responsible behaviour or good trail etiquette. There were many instances of bikers buzzing hikers at high speed on the park's many straight and steep gravel paths. Pretty soon, mountain bikers were being painted as villains, speed addicts and destroyers of trails.

Mountain biking was quickly banned in the park from all but a limited number of trails. The trails we were allowed to ride on were predominately boring, gravelled walking paths, wide enough to drive a truck down. The landowner's rationale was that these wider paths allowed more room for users to pass each other, thus less opportunity for user conflict, plus the gravelled surface was less easily damaged by bike tires. The reality was that these paths were wide, straight, and frequently steep, encouraging cyclists to ride even faster by hikers, and the gravel was easily washed away by a heavy rainstorm event every few years, leaving a rocky, rutted trail that mountain bikers would be blamed for.

Individuals, and later, advocacy groups, tried to educate the park's landowner on sustainable trail construction and to get the ban reversed, but to no avail. Conservation officers patrolled hiking-only trails and handed out fines to bikers.

Mountain bikers went underground; first by riding and maintaining existing, unofficial, social trails blazed by hikers and back-country skiers, then by blazing their own trails under the cover of darkness. Illegal trails proliferated in Gatineau Park. At the same time, individuals were building rogue trails on real-estate developer-owned land on the city's edges; most significantly in the west end in an area known as South March Highlands. Many of these trails were (and some still are) poorly situated or unsustainably built, but over time, through trial-and-error and trail building clinics, builders have discovered what worked and what didn't, discovered rock armouring and other techniques, and re-routed their trails to take advantage of Canadian shield rock barrens and water-shedding terrain.

Despite being designated an environmental conservation area due to various species at risk, the South March Highlands trail network was under constant threat of development. Builders and riders recognized this threat and formed a non-profit advocacy group called OMBA (Ottawa Mountain Bike Association). With the help of IMBA Canada (run independently from IMBA U.S.), OMBA successfully lobbied the city to protect this area and to allow OMBA to continue to maintain the trail network.

OMBA's pitch, in a way, was simple: if you want to protect the environment, then let us build & maintain sustainable trails that engage the users. If you do that, then people will use those trails, and people will stay on those trails, and the impact to the environment will be minimized. If you don't, people with no training or skill will wear their own social paths and build their own unsustainable trails that will degrade the environment far worse.

OMBA clearly identified the problem (environment degradation) and presented a solution (mountain bikers) at a time when other user groups were identifying mountain bikers as the problem and bans as the solution.

So that is the story of how a mountain biking advocacy group came to build and maintain (with permission of the landowner) a rough, rugged, and technically demanding trail network in an area the city has given its highest environmental zoning protection.

It hasn't been all sunshine and rainbows. Wooden technical trail features -- often sketchily-built or using trees hacked from the forest -- had to be torn down. Trails were closed. Other poorly-draining trails needed remediation and OMBA was accused of trail sanitation for those fixes, despite having some very accomplished downhill riders and builders on the executive board and a firm commitment to keeping difficult trails difficult.

In one particular case, a rotten rickety ladder bridge with rungs missing and nails sticking out -- which crossed wetlands -- was replaced with a safe and properly built boardwalk, using funds from the city, and OMBA was accused in that effort of using membership fees to make wheelchair accessible bridges. Individuals from time-to-time remove rocks from the trail and built ride-arounds for technical features, which OMBA spends significant time shutting down, and there are suggestions that OMBA is somehow behind it or that they don't care that it's happening. Advance riders groan that OMBA doesn't do enough for them and why aren't there jumps, teeter-toters, and elevated skinnies, and OMBA has to explain that it doesn't own the land, that it has to work with the landowner, and that the landowner doesn't feel that those kinds of man-made features are appropriate in a *natural conservation area.*

Fast-forward to today, and we now have new trail networks in the east and west ends and to the north that were approved and built from the beginning with landowner approval. OMBA successfully lobbied the government to allow fatbike access on some of Gatineau Park's snowshoe trails and the Ottawa fatbike scene continues to grow, with groomed trail access at various sites, a race, social and demo events.

OMBA recognizes that advanced riders are still looking for advanced features to challenge them, and a skills bike park on city land with city approval is in the planning stages, with subsequent stages to possibly include jump lines and other advanced features.

As mountain biking has matured over the decades, mountain bikers that were in their youth when mountain bikes first arrived here, are now in their 40's and 50's and in positions to make decisions on mountain bike access. Mountain biking is no longer seen as an adrenaline-fueled sport just for kids, but a legitimate recreational activity practiced by "kids" of all ages.

Finally, with persistent lobbying efforts spanning over a decade by OMBA, IMBA Canada, and committed individuals, Gatineau Park will adopt over 100 km of rogue trails and will allow mountain biking on official trails that we were previously banned from. OMBA has been, and will continue to be, working with the land owner to advise them on sustainable trail building & maintenance best practices. This does not imply machine-built flow trails and dirt sidewalks. Far from it. The trails that will be added to the official network are rough, rugged and demanding, and will remain so.

As with the earlier adoption of South March Highlands, some unsustainable trails in Gatineau Park will be closed. Sketchy wooden features and dirt jumps will be torn down. Other unsustainably-built trails will require remediation. Some riders will label this as sanitation or dumbing-down, as they have before, and as they always do. They don't understand what is involved, and they never get involved, aside from complaining on public forums.

The answer for them is simple: go buy some land and you can build whatever you want, however you want, whenever you want. As long as you aren't breaking the law, or being a bad neighbour, have at it.

If you are building on someone else's land, you gotta play by their rules. For a government landowner, that means give-and-take. That means building sustainably. That means building trails that can handle heavy use in a variety of weather. That means building trails with user management, risk management, water management, and land management in mind. That means addressing the needs of a variety of users with a variety of skill and fitness levels. That means being mindful of the environment and being aware of species-at-risk and archeological sites. That means having meetings, negotiating, compromising, planning, documenting, allowing time for all that to unfold, and getting permission before you dig. *Again, this does not automatically mean machine-built flow trail dirt sidewalks, or endless meetings and no progress*. If that has been your past experience, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't have to be that way if you and others like you get involved, participate, and speak up.

If that sounds like a lot to handle, it's because it is. It's more than one individual can reasonably handle on their own for long. Which is why I encourage all of you to get involved in a local advocacy group if you aren't already.

If you refuse to do that and instead continue to build illegal rogue trails without the landowners permission, then all I ask is you *do not boast about it on public forums, posting pictures of your work, providing ammunition for the likes of Mike Vandeman* and other anti-mtb zealots to use against mountain bikers that are trying to do things above-board and by the book.

If you aren't able to get permission to build, that sucks. Some of us have, and our mountain bike communities by-and-far prefer it this way, and we do not want to have to go back to the days of sneaking around in the dark to build, risking fines and criminal records, and having our work destroyed. Many of us have a good thing going. Try not to ruin it for us.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

bpressnall said:


> I think this is a good example of a poorly made rogue trail. Not only was it not authorized by authorities. but the builders did not follow proper sustainability guidelines, with fall line sections. I hope to close this thing down before it jeopardizes the construction of our new paved flow trail.


Nice! Not much more sustainable than a line across bare Sierra Nevada granodiorite.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

> If you refuse to do that and instead continue to build illegal rogue trails without the landowners permission, then all I ask is you *do not boast about it on public forums, posting pictures of your work, providing ammunition for the likes of Mike Vandeman* and other anti-mtb zealots to use against mountain bikers that are trying to do things above-board and by the book.
> 
> If you aren't able to get permission to build, that sucks. Some of us have, and our mountain bike communities by-and-far prefer it this way, and we do not want to have to go back to the days of sneaking around in the dark to build, risking fines and criminal records, and having our work destroyed. Many of us have a good thing going. Try not to ruin it for us.


Yeah whatevah Ray. Put this in yer pipe and smoke it. 








And uh Micheal who?


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Yeah whatevah Ray. Put this in yer pipe and smoke it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm with Ray. Too many crap trails going in these days. And WTF dude can't you figure out how to post a pic that isn't sideways?

As for Mike Vandeman he's still up to his old tricks, this time in Durango, CO. An editorial from this week: https://durangoherald.com/articles/204168-vandeman-mountain-biking-is-destructive


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

rockman said:


> As for Mike Vandeman he's still up to his old tricks, this time in Durango, CO. An editorial from this week: https://durangoherald.com/articles/204168-vandeman-mountain-biking-is-destructive


When OMBA submitted the proposal for the skills bike park, Mikey wrote a letter opposing it. I don't know if he's ever been to Ottawa; not even sure he could point it out on a map.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

rockman said:


> I'm with Ray.


Nttawwt ?



> Too many crap trails going in these days.


which is why rogue building is thriving these days.



> And WTF dude can't you figure out how to post a pic that isn't sideways?


 getting a new phone soon, arite?



> As for Mike Vandeman he's still up to his old tricks, this time in Durango, CO. An editorial from this week: https://durangoherald.com/articles/204168-vandeman-mountain-biking-is-destructive


First world problems.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

^ Why hasn't this joker been neg'd repped into oblivion, or banned yet?

Go post over on Pinkbike. The adults are trying to have a conversation.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

ray.vermette said:


> ^ Why hasn't this joker been neg'd repped into oblivion, or banned yet?
> 
> Go post over on Pinkbike. The adults are trying to have a conversation.


Lighten up Francis. You sound like a little girl. This is a forum. We have differing opinions on the topic at hand. And probably others. If we didn't then this world would be a very boring place.


----------



## Dirtrider127 (Sep 17, 2010)

In certain cities/areas, the land doesn't allow just to rake & ride. There's heavy brushing, benching, stumping just to build the trail. That type of building takes days and is much too heavy to do without being seen. Housing and roads are closing in and there isn't much land to play with anymore. I think the days of rogue trail building in these areas are gone. That is why you're best to go through the long legal process to build.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Lighten up Francis. You sound like a little girl. This is a forum. We have differing opinions on the topic at hand. And probably others. If we didn't then this world would be a very boring place.


Different opinions are good... if you can articulate them. But you don't. You aren't contributing to this conversation, or the previous ones, in any meaningful way.

Unless emojis and grainy sideways photos of boring rake-and-ride trails that no one rides are in your "opinion" a contribution.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Dirtrider127 said:


> In certain cities/areas, the land doesn't allow just to rake & ride. There's heavy brushing, benching, stumping just to build the trail. That type of building takes days and is much too heavy to do without being seen. Housing and roads are closing in and there isn't much land to play with anymore. I think the days of rogue trail building in these areas are gone. That is why you're best to go through the long legal process to build.


And some land just isn't suitable or meant to have trails "built" thru it if it's going to take that much effort to tame what's on offer.

It's ok to have tracts of land where there are no trail networks built up to almost mimick the housing and roads that are closing in.....


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> And some land just isn't suitable or meant to have trails "built" thru it if it's going to take that much effort to tame what's on offer.


So no trails in the rocky mountains eh?

Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to scratch in rogue trails wherever you deem appropriate and then b*tch & moan about others who create b-lines and braids on "your" trails?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> So no trails in the rocky mountains eh?


I've spent time riding in the Rockies and your Rockies argument doesn't apply here.



> Doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to scratch in rogue trails wherever you deem appropriate and then b*tch & moan about others who create b-lines and braids on "your" trails?


I never said that anyone created b-lines or braids on MY trails. MY trails are free from those phenomenon, fortunately.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> I've spent time riding in the Rockies and your Rockies argument doesn't apply here


Why is that? Just saying that a lot of places require more than just "rake and ride" to build trails. Plenty of benching is needed.

Do you allow other people to ride on YOUR trails?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why is that? Just saying that a lot of places require more than just "rake and ride" to build trails. Plenty of benching is needed.


Of course they do. I've twice been a tax payer in Utah and pretty much all of my rides went straight up into the Wasatch mtns from my driveway. However, not all areas in the Wasatch are suitable for routing/building trail. Sounds to me like the area mentioned above surrounded by encroaching development, housing and roads may be way more work than it's worth IMO. Again, some areas are not meant to have trails routed thru them.

Just like in a very popular sanctioned riding area near me. One particular trail about a mile long was routed in and around a wetland area. For part of the year it eventually dries up for its entirety. But, a whole lotta continual work has gone into keeping it "sustainable" with bridges, extra material brought in and "seasonal" trail braids around wet areas. Great trail when dry, but not an area where a trail should ever have been built IMO.



> Do you allow other people to ride on YOUR trails?


If they can find them.  this trail is at least a dozen years old and there's miles of it.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> If they can find them.  this trail is at least a dozen years old and there's miles of it.
> View attachment 1178985


Cool, if I'm ever in your neighborhood I'm going to hunt some of those down and strava the $hit out of them


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> Cool, if I'm ever in your neighborhood I'm going to hunt some of those down and strava the $hit out of them


Ha!!! If you ever find your way out here I'd be more than happy to take you on a tour. I did take a group of 13 thru some stuff a little over a month ago that none of the 13 had been on before (and they live in the area) and after the 2 hour ride they were all like "what the...." Haha so awesome. They were kind enough to ask me if I had a "no STRAVA" rule before we set out, so that was nice. Almost half the crew were rogue trail builders so they get it.👍


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why is that? Just saying that a lot of places require more than just "rake and ride" to build trails. Plenty of benching is needed.
> 
> Do you allow other people to ride on YOUR trails?


Yes. Many of these previous photos are on fairly flat ground. And you can get away with a lower level of engineering. But in the Western USA mountains a proper benching technique, tail and corridor layout, and especially proper climbing turn layout is much more necessary. After all, it is MOUNTAIN bike riding.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

endo_alley said:


> Yes. Many of these previous photos are on fairly flat ground. And you can get away with a lower level of engineering. But in the Western USA mountains a proper benching technique, tail and corridor layout, and especially proper climbing turn layout is much more necessary. After all, it is MOUNTAIN bike riding.


Ed Zachary! Most of that "rake & ride" theory would never apply to my area on the coast of CA. Sure would be nice is if it did...but it doesn't and not even close except for maybe an occasional few feet here and there.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Switchblade2 said:


> Hack I love your trail concepts. Easy to build, fun to ride and easy to maintain. I hope some day ride some of your favorites with you.
> 
> We use to have a bunch of trails like that but most of them got adopted or are in the PROCESS of being adopted.


Cmon out anytime! And uh we do have mountains here too. I've lived east and west so I have a very good understanding of the differences and similarities. Even with substantial elevation changes you can still route a trail with minimal effort in a lor of instances. My local short loop here gains you 1500 vert of climbing in 9 miles. Nothing crazy but the climbs are 500 ft of vert per mile on rocky rooty techy tight singletrack. All rake n ride. So funny that people just assume that everything's flat based on some pictures. It's never flat here in my area.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

ray.vermette said:


> When OMBA submitted the proposal for the skills bike park, Mikey wrote a letter opposing it. I don't know if he's ever been to Ottawa; not even sure he could point it out on a map.


Mike V., posted some ridiculous hater comments to an article in our local paper about our trails we're building in Oregon.

At this point, I just laugh, knowing that long after Mike V is pushing up daisies I'll still be riding my mountain bike in singletrack.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Lighten up Francis. You sound like a little girl. This is a forum. We have differing opinions on the topic at hand. And probably others. If we didn't then this world would be a very boring place.


On the land that you build, is it state land? Federal land?

What would be the process for gaining official approval for new trails in your area?

I'm curious about specific reasons that you don't go through official channels. Not judging, just curious.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Curveball said:


> On the land that you build, is it state land? Federal land?


Neither. It's a mix of private and conservation.



> What would be the process for gaining official approval for new trails in your area?


I have no idea. I only build for myself. Then share with a select few. If trails are found then they are found. Pretty much all that I've built over the years have withstood the test of time. A few have been moto'd out over the years but that goes with the territory where I was building at the time. The beauty of scratching in well routed trails in rapid fire fashion is that if you lose them due to development or deterioration from a user group, you never put that much time or effort in to put them in in the 1st place so no big loss. When you love building trail you love the process as much as the final product. There's a private parcel that I put a nice 5 mile loop in some years ago that got completely destroyed by an ice storm and then logging. Well that loop only took me a couple months to create and I enjoyed it for a year or two and when it was destroyed I was like eh no big deal I've got other irons in the fire anyway and created a bigger loop elsewhere.



> I'm curious about specific reasons that you don't go through official channels. Not judging, just curious.


No worries. Yeah there are plenty of places with busy trail heads, signed and named to death trail networks of what once was nice singletrack turned into track and a half by the hordes over time. I prefer the tight stuff where I know I will hardly ever see another tire mark.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Neither. It's a mix of private and conservation.
> 
> I have no idea. I only build for myself. Then share with a select few. If trails are found then they are found. Pretty much all that I've built over the years have withstood the test of time. A few have been moto'd out over the years but that goes with the territory where I was building at the time. The beauty of scratching in well routed trails in rapid fire fashion is that if you lose them due to development or deterioration from a user group, you never put that much time or effort in to put them in in the 1st place so no big loss. When you love building trail you love the process as much as the final product. There's a private parcel that I put a nice 5 mile loop in some years ago that got completely destroyed by an ice storm and then logging. Well that loop only took me a couple months to create and I enjoyed it for a year or two and when it was destroyed I was like eh no big deal I've got other irons in the fire anyway and created a bigger loop elsewhere.
> 
> No worries. Yeah there are plenty of places with busy trail heads, signed and named to death trail networks of what once was nice singletrack turned into track and a half by the hordes over time. I prefer the tight stuff where I know I will hardly ever see another tire mark.


It's a whole lot worse that you do it on private land. I can almost understand giving the finger to the government when building trails, but to do that to Joe Shmo...not impressed.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Skelldify (May 10, 2013)

People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


Not here. We have lots of sanctioned and very challenging trails on both public and private land.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


Or, you will get the USFS closing all trail access to mountain biking. I admit that I shared a similar attitude 20 years ago when nobody else went back in many of these forests. But that doesn't seem to work in the present climate. It is not a sustainable attitude.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Sounds like some builders live in heavy use areas where closely working with land managers and following rules and regs is a must. Fortunately those builders speaking hear seem to have productive relationships with the authorities. Any type of unsanctioned building in those places would likely be a big problem and need to be avoided.

On the other hand, many builders live in much lower pressure areas where land managers are less concerned about what is being built as long as it is low profile. Low impact trails built in the NE typically go to weed in less than a year if not ridden or maintained, and often visually look like little more than game trails once the leaves fall.


I think, in many cases, the problem takes care of itself. If you live in a low pressure area, then you are not going to have many builders out there to draw attention and cause problems. If you live in a high pressure area you have to deal with the red tape, but come building time you have many hands to make the load light.


Where I see a problem is when you have a low pressure area but a few whistle blowers are drawing attention to low profile work - low profile work that land managers would have otherwise ignored until someone with control issues went and made a stink.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> It's a whole lot worse that you do it on private land. I can almost understand giving the finger to the government when building trails, but to do that to Joe Shmo...not impressed.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


Impressing you was never my intention.

90% of the land in my state is privately owned. Do you actually think that a huge wireless company is gonna give two sh1ts that some simple scratched in game looking trails are on their land that they 99.9% will never see? Just because the land is private does mean that I'm playing on just any "Joe Shmo" land.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


No, people will keep building rogue trail simply because they enjoy it. A whole lot of it happens out this way by many guys I know. It's just how it is.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

HacksawReynolds said:


> No, people will keep building rogue trail simply because they enjoy it. A whole lot of it happens out this way by many guys I know. It's just how it is.


It's clear to me by reading your posts how much pleasure you take in building and maintaining trails. I see that same enthusiasm in other dedicated trail builders.

Some here simply do not understand the dynamics of why we do what we do. Today I walked a few miles around a mountain near where I live, to scout out a new trail. I will be meeting with a government official and trying to convince her to agree to funding and building it. Plan B is to get a local mountain biking association to pay for a portion of the work and get the city to match their donation. Plan C would be to find a more creative way to get the trail built.

That is how I approach rogue trail building. Sometimes it is the best first option, while other times, there are several other approaches that might get the job done more efficiently.

Public lands can be a patchwork of lands managed by various groups. In Arizona, you can have Forest Service land that bumps up against State Trust Land and then runs into National Park Service lands. There is also a mix of BLM lands and city preserve lands. You could have a situation where two out of three land managers are open to new mountain biking trails, but State Trust Lands prevent any proposals from happening because they have a specific mandate to hold onto these lands until a point where they are auctioned off to raise money for public schools. Even if State Lands offer an easement, it is temporary, until the land is sold. As a result, other land managers refuse to get involved, saying they need a written agreement that any trails they build will be allowed forever. That is silly. Build the trail and in ten or twenty years, when that land is sold, accept that you will probably lose the corridor.

I mention that particular scenario because that would be the perfect opportunity for rogue builders to come in and cut in a trail on State Trust Land, to connect to lands with developed trails. It could be as simple as running motorcycles across the gap for 2-3 miles and roughing in a line that can be better ridden in by bikers, while occasional brush work is done to better define the trail. That is exactly the sort of trail land managers are willing to adopt, knowing that at one time it was built without permission. And without those rogue builders, two great trail systems, only a few miles apart, would never be connected.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.





HacksawReynolds said:


> No, people will keep building rogue trail simply because they enjoy it...


Oddly, I find myself agreeing with Hacksaw on this one. People build rogue trail simply because they enjoy building trail.

The justification that rogue trails are being built because sanctioned trails are not challenging doesn't hold water because:


Many rogue trails aren't all that challenging.
There are sanctioned challenging trails being built as discussed earlier in the thread. Just because it's not happening in one area doesn't mean it can't happen if builders speak up and get involved.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Miker J said:


> Where I see a problem is when you have a low pressure area but a few whistle blowers are drawing attention to low profile work - low profile work that land managers would have otherwise ignored until someone with control issues went and made a stink.


Who needs whistle blowers when the builders themselves post pictures and boast about their work on public forums?


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

ray.vermette said:


> Who needs whistle blowers when the builders themselves post pictures and boast about their work on public forums?


I'll go a step further. I've contacted the local newspaper and invited the editor out to witness and photograph a work project. The editor is a mountain biker who feels the same as others in that he believes many land managers do the bare minimum of trail work, as they do not ride and are not passionate.

One hiking group was part of a newspaper article where they shamed the Forest Service, saying they were poorly managing an area of land. The hikers (Friends of Walnut Canyon), asked that the Forest Service give up that land to the Park Service who they felt would better maintain it. You probably think that the FS hated that group or at least refused to work with them after they publicly shame the FS. Nope. The FS stopped working on two other trail projects and met with the hiking group, asking them what they needed to do to earn their respect. Within weeks the Fs began building a cloverleaf set of trails on a Mesa that I got to work on, to satisfy the concerns the hikers.

I joked with my friends at the FS, telling them the next time I wanted a new trail built for mountain bikers, I might have to go ask the Flagstaff Daily Sun to write a negative article about them.

Pictures prove their has been a failure of land management. Land managers have a job to do and can be held accountable. Pictures are a great way to show them what they need to be doing. Biker J can call it a control issue, and in a way it is. You can control the behavior of a failing group of land managers by first showing the public they are failing. Otherwise they might go on failing to do their jobs.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> I'll go a step further. I've contacted the local newspaper and invited the editor out to witness and photograph a work project. The editor is a mountain biker who feels the same as others in that he believes many land managers do the bare minimum of trail work, as they do not ride and are not passionate.


That's not in the land manager job description.

A good LM should be motivated to find the appropriate balance of all the competing concerns and uses. I've come across some USFS rec specialists who do ride and are stoked about trails, but it's not a requirement for success. Passionate or not, the best scenario is a LM who sees the need and identifies appropriate places for motivated volunteer partners to create or improve trails, and then supports their work.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> I'll go a step further. I've contacted the local newspaper and invited the editor out to witness and photograph a work project. The editor is a mountain biker who feels the same as others in that he believes many land managers do the bare minimum of trail work, as they do not ride and are not passionate.
> 
> One hiking group was part of a newspaper article where they shamed the Forest Service, saying they were poorly managing an area of land. The hikers (Friends of Walnut Canyon), asked that the Forest Service give up that land to the Park Service who they felt would better maintain it. You probably think that the FS hated that group or at least refused to work with them after they publicly shame the FS. Nope. The FS stopped working on two other trail projects and met with the hiking group, asking them what they needed to do to earn their respect. Within weeks the Fs began building a cloverleaf set of trails on a Mesa that I got to work on, to satisfy the concerns the hikers.
> 
> ...


I see where your coming from Boris but it's a hornet's nest when taking the USFS to task for not doing their job. Other groups also feel the USFS is doing the bare minimum. For example, here's an excerpt from a letter written by a Sierra Club member obtained via FOIA.









The FS is still leery of being accused of being in collusion with the mtn bike community. It still hampers advocacy efforts today including trying to establish a mobile trail crew where we can do basic maintenance on system trails that the FS cannot afford to do.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Where I live, a local field Ranger for the USFS does not have the authority to design and build new trails. Or even whether or not to accept rogue trails as part of the trail system. There is usually a travel plan which is designed by higher authorities in the system. They have a wide set of aims for forest management. Their purpose is not entirely limited to creating a playground for recreationalists. Any specific changes to the national forest travel plan require a written proposal which must either be accepted or not accepted by the proper authority. Often times funding for a project must be found. And often NEPA and other studies are required by law. So when I hear that a local office of the Forest Service makes a hasty decision regarding the travel plan, I think there must be more to the story.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


 Challenging? Ever pedal in New England? Lots of tech and chunk. And rocks, big and small. MA builder here. Sometimes our challenge is building something eaiser to accommodate a broader range of riders. YRMV.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

endo_alley said:


> Where I live, a local field Ranger for the USFS does not have the authority to design and build new trails. Or even whether or not to accept rogue trails as part of the trail system. There is usually a travel plan which is designed by higher authorities in the system. They have a wide set of aims for forest management. Their purpose is not entirely limited to creating a playground for recreationalists. Any specific changes to the national forest travel plan require a written proposal which must either be accepted or not accepted by the proper authority. Often times funding for a project must be found. And often NEPA and other studies are required by law. So when I hear that a local office of the Forest Service makes a hasty decision regarding the travel plan, I think there must be more to the story.


Yes.

The USFS updated their planning process earlier this decade, and now operates under the 2012 planning rule. There is a process and a hierarchy of decisions. All travel planning, recreation planning, etc. has to be consistent with the goals laid out in the forest plan, which is revised on a ~30 year timeframe. Forests are going through plan revisions in the wake of the rule, which is why we've been seeing a lot of advocacy alerts in recent years. The forest plan identifies geographic units that might have unique management goals, and the desired conditions for wildlife, recreation, etc is laid out. More detailed planning, such as travel plans, are required to be consistent with the goals of the forest plan.

The degree of latitude that a local official has depends a lot on what decisions have already been made in the broader plans, and what travel, environmental, or recreation planning may have already been done.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

ray.vermette said:


> Oddly, I find myself agreeing with Hacksaw on this one. People build rogue trail simply because they enjoy building trail.
> 
> The justification that rogue trails are being built because sanctioned trails are not challenging doesn't hold water because:
> 
> ...


Also rogue trail builders will always keep building because some, like myself, find "established" sanctioned networks to be so unsightly due to all of the signage, 4 ways junctions and intersections, crowded trails, one way trails, busy trail heads.

I occasionally ride areas like that but my daily riding takes me where I much prefer which is no signs, no other riders, no marketing, no hype, just me and the trail.

I don't want what many of you want when it comes to a woods riding experience.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

And another thing. You so often here, "rogue trail builders/building gives us and our sport a bad name". Haha that's YOUR trip, not mine.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

*MTB Advocacy Groups to Landowners*: give mtbrs a place to ride and build, and they will stop rogue building.

*Anti-Mtb Groups to Landowners*: if you give mtbrs land, you are rewarding bad behaviour, and they'll keep doing it.

*Hacksaw*: keeps doing it. And brags about it online.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Also rogue trail builders will always keep building because some, like myself, find "established" sanctioned networks to be so unsightly due to all of the signage, 4 ways junctions and intersections, crowded trails, one way trails, busy trail heads.
> 
> I occasionally ride areas like that but my daily riding takes me where I much prefer which is no signs, no other riders, no marketing, no hype, just me and the trail.
> 
> I don't want what many of you want when it comes to a woods riding experience.


That's about as selfish as it gets. And on other people's property.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

evasive said:


> That's about as selfish as it gets. And on other people's property.


Exactly.

It depends on the area, but in my area we had an old, classic trail closed because a new illegal one was built nearby. Not necessarily justified in my opinion, but it didn't matter... The land manager thought it was so case (and trail) closed.

I'm the one that has to answer a million emails trying to remind the land manager that 99% of mtbers are good stewards of the land and they shouldn't make brash decisions based on the actions of a select few. The people who build don't care about that though and frankly they don't even care about people having trails to ride, they just enjoy building (so do I) and will do it regardless of who or how it affects.

Hacksaw - I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming that your area isn't so contentious, but it's disconcerting that you so broadly advocate rogue building when you know not all areas are that way.

It's like riding after rain... If you know your area and know you can ride without damage then that's fine, but don't tell others they can ride their area when it's wet because of it.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

HacksawReynolds said:


> And another thing. You so often here, "rogue trail builders/building gives us and our sport a bad name". Haha that's YOUR trip, not mine.


When it comes to land managers, it's a fact.

So what exactly is your point other than you don't give a rat's ass how your actions affect others?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

ray.vermette said:


> *MTB Advocacy Groups to Landowners*: give mtbrs a place to ride and build, and they will stop rogue building.
> 
> *Anti-Mtb Groups to Landowners*: if you give mtbrs land, you are rewarding bad behaviour, and they'll keep doing it.
> 
> *Hacksaw*: keeps doing it. And brags about it online.


Not only that, he has the gall to tell others they are horrible people for modifying an existing trail in anyway. The guy has ZERO ground to stand on and make comments about how others modify trails if he is building illegal trails...... sheesh.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Also rogue trail builders will always keep building because some, like myself, find "established" sanctioned networks to be so unsightly due to all of the signage, 4 ways junctions and intersections, crowded trails, one way trails, busy trail heads.
> 
> I occasionally ride areas like that but my daily riding takes me where I much prefer which is no signs, no other riders, no marketing, no hype, just me and the trail.
> 
> I don't want what many of you want when it comes to a woods riding experience.


 I think hacksaw is way up in the boonies of New England, not that I support rogue trail work though. So out in the woods, not even in a town, unincorporated townships. Mostly on private land he said. Lumber and paper woods? No rules, no regs. No one would even notice I'm guessing. Very few have those kinds of areas to ride in.


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


Agree. Building rogue trails is a by product of our gov't agencies closing trails and reducing access etc.

Here in so cal, if it wasn't for the rogue trail builder and dirt bike riders from the 60's and 70's we wouldn't have anywhere to ride.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

> Here in so cal, if it wasn't for the rogue trail builder and dirt bike riders from the 60's and 70's we wouldn't have anywhere to ride.


Bingo!

That goes for lots of different areas of our country.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> Not only that, he has the gall to tell others they are horrible people for modifying an existing trail in anyway. The guy has ZERO ground to stand on and make comments about how others modify trails if he is building illegal trails...... sheesh.


Do you ride unsanctioned trails?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

evasive said:


> That's about as selfish as it gets. And on other people's property.


Yes and yes. But as far as selfishness goes, no ones mellow has been harshed by my building over the years. And cycling isn't a team sport as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

> Hacksaw - I'm giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming that your area isn't so contentious, but it's disconcerting that you so broadly advocate rogue building when you know not all areas are that way.
> 
> It's like riding after rain... If you know your area and know you can ride without damage then that's fine, but don't tell others they can ride their area when it's wet because of it.


We are all adults here, we can make decisions for ourselves. I do what I do and am just sharing how the other half live as this thread is related to rogue trail building.

Fortunately riding here during and after monsoon rains is totally fine for the trails. We drain well.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Do you ride unsanctioned trails?


This thread is about building illegal trails, you have admitted to building illegal trails and then in other threads complain about other users who modify trails, legally or illegally, to suit their own needs. How you can think there is a difference is amazing.

You are a pot calling the kettle black. You have zero credibility now when it comes to any discussion of trail building, modification or maintenance.

I suggest you stop pretending you are some sort of authority on trail building just because you make some rake n rides on privately owned land where you have no business being there.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> This thread is about building illegal trails, you have admitted to building illegal trails and then in other threads complain about other users who modify trails, legally or illegally, to suit their own needs. How you can think there is a difference is amazing.
> 
> You are a pot calling the kettle black. You have zero credibility now when it comes to any discussion of trail building, modification or maintenance.
> 
> I suggest you stop pretending you are some sort of authority on trail building just because you make some rake n rides on privately owned land where you have no business being there.


1st of all you didn't answer my question.

2nd, I do have a problem with anyone who alters a trail that they didn't build to suit their needs or skillset.

3rd, I never claimed to be an "authority" on trail building.

So are you going to answer my question?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

HacksawReynolds said:


> 1st of all you didn't answer my question.
> 
> 2nd, I do have a problem with anyone who alters a trail that they didn't build to suit their needs or skillset.
> 
> ...


Your question has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. This thread is about the consequences of illegal trail building, not for riding a trail that might be unsanctioned. Plenty of people knowingly and unknowingly ride unmarked or unsanctioned trails, should they be held to the fire in the same way as someone who knowingly built that illegal trail in the first place. Absolutely not. There is no point to be made there.

You have zero right to be upset with anyone who alters a trail if you cannot follow the basic rules of not building illegal trails to begin with. If someone was to alter one of the trails you hand built illegally, what sort of authoritative grounds would you stand behind if you caught them?_ "You are not allowed to alter this illegal trail built on private land because I built it"_? That would be a pretty weak argument to make since neither of you are land owners and neither of you have any right to modify the dirt in any way.

You are claiming to be some sort of authority be decrying anyone who wants to build a trail with an alternate line.

I am not the only one on this site to call you out on this bad behavior.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> Your question has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread.


Neither does my opinion on people altering sanctioned and unsanctioned trail. Try practicing what you preach, guy.



> This thread is about the consequences of illegal trail building, not for riding a trail that might be unsanctioned. Plenty of people knowingly and unknowingly ride unmarked or unsanctioned trails, should they be held to the fire in the same way as someone who knowingly built that illegal trail in the first place. Absolutely not. There is no point to be made there.


Trespassing is trespassing, doesn't really matter if it's the builder or the rider.



> You have zero right to be upset with anyone who alters a trail if you cannot follow the basic rules of not building illegal trails to begin with. If someone was to alter one of the trails you hand built illegally, what sort of authoritative grounds would you stand behind if you caught them?_ "You are not allowed to alter this illegal trail built on private land because I built it"_? That would be a pretty weak argument to make since neither of you are land owners and neither of you have any right to modify the dirt in any way.


I have no right blah blah blah lol, listen to you.?

It's just poor form to alter another mans work. Got it? Pretty simple. Plenty of other here feel the same way.



> You are claiming to be some sort of authority be decrying anyone who wants to build a trail with an alternate line.
> 
> I am not the only one on this site to call you out on this bad behavior.


Bad behavior lol. What for not liking trail braids and spaghetti spiderweb trail networks? Oh pardon me for liking what I like and not liking things where I've seen issues arise in the form of B-lines, corner cuts, cheater lines ect ect on sanctioned and unsanctioned trails and letting it be known on a MTB forum.

So?


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> I see where your coming from Boris but it's a hornet's nest when taking the USFS to task for not doing their job. Other groups also feel the USFS is doing the bare minimum. For example, here's an excerpt from a letter written by a Sierra Club member obtained via FOIA.
> 
> View attachment 1179470
> 
> ...


As years have past, the FS in Flagstaff has gotten the message and seems to be responding in a positive way, mostly because of people like you and Raising Arizona patiently working with them even after they have let you down several times.

It's all a chess game, knowing when to sacrifice and lose ground in order to eventually win the game. This does not seem a good time to discuss or do rogue trail work. It is a time to let the FS show the riding community it is responding to it's needs. It seems important to trust people like you, who are close to the action, and know what the best course of action is to take for the future of mountain biking in Flagstaff.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> It's just poor form to alter another mans property . Got it? Pretty simple.


FIFY. Catching on yet?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Silentfoe said:


> 🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏🐏


.........


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

Smithhammer said:


> I think that's true for a lot of us. But, there is no escaping that fact that if you're building unsanctioned trails on public land, you are doing so _illegally,_ period. And doing so undermines the hard work (both advocacy and physical trail building) of others who are trying to obey the law, and not piss off land managers who may be tempted to clamp down on us as user group entirely.
> 
> I live in an area that used to see a lot of illegal trail building, and no doubt there were two sides to that argument. It was hard to get anywhere with local land managers at the time, and people got frustrated and took things into their own hands (which still doesn't make it right). And then, the FS ended up adopting a lot of those unsanctioned trails, which unfortunately sent an unintentional message that this was an ok thing to keep doing, and it will eventually get adopted - this was leading to a situation that wasn't sustainable, and could have ended badly for the future of mtn biking in our area. Luckily, with the advent of more organized trail advocacy/trail building groups, this illegal building was brought under control with the recognition that both sides were willing to come to the table and work together more through sanctioned partnerships. Very little of illegal building happens these days, and it's frowned upon by a lot of us, because we know it's endangering our continued, _legal_ access.
> 
> ...


Good synopsis. It was heady times, for sure.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> The USFS updated their planning process earlier this decade, and now operates under the 2012 planning rule. There is a process and a hierarchy of decisions. All travel planning, recreation planning, etc. has to be consistent with the goals laid out in the forest plan, which is revised on a ~30 year timeframe. Forests are going through plan revisions in the wake of the rule, which is why we've been seeing a lot of advocacy alerts in recent years. The forest plan identifies geographic units that might have unique management goals, and the desired conditions for wildlife, recreation, etc is laid out. More detailed planning, such as travel plans, are required to be consistent with the goals of the forest plan.
> 
> The degree of latitude that a local official has depends a lot on what decisions have already been made in the broader plans, and what travel, environmental, or recreation planning may have already been done.


You just made the perfect case for rogue trail building. I can picture a mountain biking group setting up a meeting with local FS officials back in 2009, to discuss new trail networks that the FS had promised to build back in 2005. The mountain bikers ask why the FS didn't keep their word. The FS replies and says it's complicated. How so, asks the mountain bikers. Well, first of all our grant writer retired and we haven't trained anyone else how to do it, so we are not actively looking for trail funding. Then the person who ran our trail crew decided to take a job promotion elsewhere and his replacement is still learning our system. Also, it was a busy fire season the last few years and most of our trail crews are also red-card certified and request going out on fires to earn extra cash. That leaves us without any trail crew during peak building season. Plus, we have been hearing about a new planning process coming out of Washington, that might get done in the next few years, so we figure why not just sit on our big fat asses and wait for the new planning process, so we don't get started on a trail project and then waste time and have to start all over in 2012. The mountain bikers then leave and head straight to Home Depot to buy trail building tools.

Fast forward to 2018. A new group of mountain bikers meets with the Forest Service officials and asks why there has been no new trail work since 2002, even though the new planning rules have been in place since 2012. The FS officials repeat the same excuses as before and start off saying it is complicated, they have had many staff leave and new ones are still getting to know their jobs, and fire season disrupts trail work, and funding is tricky, and they haven't finished NEPA studies because they haven't started NEPA studies, because the wildlife biologist has determined two owl nests could be within a half mile of several existing trails and wants them moved or covered up, and the new Chief Ranger is an old equestrian and wants to place priority on improving horse trails out in the sticks, far from mountain bike trails, and also, if we build new trails for mountain bikers, we will have to maintain those trails and we don't feel we have the manpower to do that. You know, it's complicated.

Then in walks the first group of mountain bikers, who interrupt the FS officials and tell them to just keep doing nothing and blaming forest fires and new planning rules and owl nests and bosses who prefer horse trails. Just leave all the new trails that have been built the last 9 years alone, because we will maintain them. The FS officials ask what new trails? The mountain bikers look at them and say; You just proved why you are failing us. You aren't even aware of the trails we build that are hugely popular. You spend all of your time looking for reasons not to do your job and we spend all of our time, like marines, looking for ways to improvise and overcome. The mountain bikers have passion for what they do and you FS guys are just working for a paycheck, at about 10% effort.

The more excuses you make for the FS, the less excuses they have to invent. They thank you for giving them even more reasons not to do their jobs.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> You just made the perfect case for rogue trail building. I can picture a mountain biking group setting up a meeting with local FS officials back in 2009, to discuss new trail networks that the FS had promised to build back in 2005. The mountain bikers ask why the FS didn't keep their word. The FS replies and says it's complicated. How so, asks the mountain bikers. Well, first of all our grant writer retired and we haven't trained anyone else how to do it, so we are not actively looking for trail funding. Then the person who ran our trail crew decided to take a job promotion elsewhere and his replacement is still learning our system. Also, it was a busy fire season the last few years and most of our trail crews are also red-card certified and request going out on fires to earn extra cash. That leaves us without any trail crew during peak building season. Plus, we have been hearing about a new planning process coming out of Washington, that might get done in the next few years, so we figure why not just sit on our big fat asses and wait for the new planning process, so we don't get started on a trail project and then waste time and have to start all over in 2012. The mountain bikers then leave and head straight to Home Depot to buy trail building tools.
> 
> Fast forward to 2018. A new group of mountain bikers meets with the Forest Service officials and asks why there has been no new trail work since 2002, even though the new planning rules have been in place since 2012. The FS officials repeat the same excuses as before and start off saying it is complicated, they have had many staff leave and new ones are still getting to know their jobs, and fire season disrupts trail work, and funding is tricky, and they haven't finished NEPA studies because they haven't started NEPA studies, because the wildlife biologist has determined two owl nests could be within a half mile of several existing trails and wants them moved or covered up, and the new Chief Ranger is an old equestrian and wants to place priority on improving horse trails out in the sticks, far from mountain bike trails, and also, if we build new trails for mountain bikers, we will have to maintain those trails and we don't feel we have the manpower to do that. You know, it's complicated.
> 
> ...


Your word salad completely misses the point of the post you quoted. It also shows that you don't understand the process. My post was about the big-picture planning process and the fact that broader decisions like forest plans are used to guide more detailed and limited ones, like travel plans. I didn't write anything about ground-level trailwork decisions. Like most of your posts in the climate change thread, you can't see the forest because you're arguing about patterns in the bark 2 inches in front of your nose.

I guess I'm lucky to live near a forest with competent and dedicated staff. I don't agree with all their decisions, but I understand the framework that guides them.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Switchblade2 said:


> Smithhammer can you do us a favor and list all the trails you say were adopted by the USFS prior to the change where you guys are now getting new trails built that are USFS approved. Please provide a list of the new USFS aproved trails since the change. Will I be able to access online videos of the new USFS trails that were built after the adoption process ended?
> 
> I have no clue which USFS District this change has taken place can you provide that information? Are all the trails posted on Trailforks or MTBProject? If not what is a good online database to view the trails you list?


If you were genuinely interested in the answer, it's not hard to learn. Smithhammer's posts aren't coy about where he lives and rides. I can corroborate everything he wrote, and there are plenty of videos of famous trails in a formerly contentious area.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> Your word salad completely misses the point of the post you quoted. It also shows that you don't understand the process. My post was about the big-picture planning process and the fact that broader decisions like forest plans are used to guide more detailed and limited ones, like travel plans. I didn't write anything about ground-level trailwork decisions.
> 
> I guess I'm lucky to live near a forest with competent and dedicated staff. I don't agree with all their decisions, but I understand the framework that guides them.


I completely understand the process. I worked for the Forest Service. You seem easy to please and appease. All someone has to do to excuse their inability to accomplish something is start telling you about a government process, then your eyes glaze over in awe.

If our government shut down, and the department of interior employees put on furlough, nobody would notice. In fact, most FS districts would improve. Passionate trail users would clean up trash, do maintenance, and design and build much needed connector trails.

There are very few examples of the government doing something better and more efficiently than civilians. Are you also a big fan of the U.S. Post Office, the IRS, EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Homeland Security, FBI, and the Department of Redundancy Department (made that one up). There is a reason our governments Congress has an approval rating under 10%. That is the degree of effort they put into doing their jobs. I expect more, so should you.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Boris Badenov said:


> There are very few examples of the government doing something better and more efficiently than civilians.


Maybe so but without government we would all be poaching trails or paying private landowners to ride them. Providing access to public lands is one of the few decent things our government does IMO so if they don't manage it perfectly I forgive them.


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

Yeah, federal agencies aren't needed, none of them work. Who needs the FDA, USDA, DOD, DOJ, DOT, The Treasury Department, DOVA, DOS, or the Executive Office of the President, all useless lets get rid of them.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> Maybe so but without government we would all be poaching trails or paying private landowners to ride them. Providing access to public lands is one of the few decent things our government does IMO so if they don't manage it perfectly I forgive them.


Fair point. I've advocated adopt-a-trail programs in the past. I sat down with the FS and suggested there is a progression they should go through to maintain the existing trail system, and it should start with people who use and love those trails. The local volunteer coordinator at the FS told me if they did start using volunteers more, they would be responsible for them and have to train them. They said no thanks. Instead, they embraced something that is typical of government agencies, the Fee Demo program. They tried it out in Sedona at first. They said it was a well thought out program that would raise money to pay government workers to build and maintain trails. I think they wanted $6 to use the trails. They also claimed they were going to improve parking areas with the fees. They did. They installed $75,000 auto-pay kiosks. Then they began using the fees to hire law enforcement guys to make sure people were paying to use the trails. Then they had to use the money to buy the law enforcement guys new law enforcement trucks. Plus benefits for them like health care, sick time, vacation time, work comp claims when they twist their ankles, etc.

Then the FS needed to go visit shops in Sedona and ask them if they would be willing to put a sign in the window saying you can purchase a Red Rocks Pass at that location. Guess what almost all of the merchants said to them? Maybe we can place those Red Rock Passes right next to our newest bumper stickers that read; Can't See The Forest Thru the Fees. In other words, the FS couldn't find too many local merchants that supported the fee program.

A year or so into the government fee program revealed that people were not paying to use the trails as the FS expected. So they handed out tickets to people in the parking lots or trail heads. Then people went to court and asked the Forest Service LEO's if they actually saw them using the trail, or if they just saw them in the parking lot. The judges dismissed the cases. Then the FS purchased new signs saying the fees were for parking in the lots, not for using the trails. That way they could write tickets to people who parked without buying a pass. Then the FS had to pay for newly paved parking lots and auto-pay kiosks and the additional law enforcement and their benefits. Guess how much was left over to do trail work? I have no idea. I'd have to file a FOIA request. It would not shock me to hear they lose money by charging fees to ride on public lands. That is how inefficient the government is.

And all those years there were volunteers right in front of them who were willing to build and maintain local trails for free. There has to be a limit on how much you are willing to forgive them for. I find that the less you know about how they operate, the more understanding you will be. Unfortunately, I worked for them and know far too much about how little they do to continue forgiving them. If they went away, the public lands would still be public lands. I'm sure we could come up with ways to manage it's use. If congress was shut down for the next couple years, do you really think the world would come to an end?


----------



## roughster (Dec 18, 2017)

That was a great post *Boris*. Not saying I agree with all of your perspective, but I believe you accurately hit the nail on the head with how some agencies do get out of control.

The key to me is not to demonize this missteps the agencies make, but be cognizant of those and find a way to bring them into the conversation constructively. IMO, which is mostly rock climbing advocacy with State/Federal Land Managers, it is often one misguided person, usually sitting in the seat with the actual power, that causes these types of scenarios.

Locally, we had a rock climbing destination removed from access about 15 years ago. I worked personally and with a national advocacy group with the State park unit managing the area for years with zero progress. The head of the unit moved onto to another unit, and within 6 months, his replacement was working with us to re-open the access with very logical steps and checks. Flash forward to now, it is one of the, if not the, most popular local area in a good 100 mile radius.

It's really hard when the head of the agency is ass-backwards and I am not sure what the solution is when "that" is the problem. However, it is a good reminder to think about most people in the land managing unit are probably in support of local efforts and just trying to do their job to the best of their abilities.

This has been a great thread so far. Though it has had some twists into ad hominem and off topic, overall, I look forward to reading new posts on this thread more so than any other on MTBR right now. For that, thanks


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Silentfoe said:


> FIFY. Catching on yet?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


He is clueless and entitled.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

roughster said:


> That was a great post *Boris*. Not saying I agree with all of your perspective, but I believe you accurately hit the nail on the head with how some agencies do get out of control.
> 
> The key to me is not to demonize this missteps the agencies make, but be cognizant of those and find a way to bring them into the conversation constructively. IMO, which is mostly rock climbing advocacy with State/Federal Land Managers, it is often one misguided person, usually sitting in the seat with the actual power, that causes these types of scenarios.
> 
> ...


There was an underfunded and underused state park here. The local trailbuilders lobbied to construct bike trails there for years to no avail. Then the district mangager moved on and his replacement approved the trails right away. The builders went to work and now it's an amazing place to ride and is well-used.


----------



## tbmaddux (May 22, 2012)

A few thoughts from Oregon in the mid-Willamette Valley. If you don't want to read all of them, my takeaway is that things are getting better with mountain bikers and trails and access around here and it would only be hurt by more unauthorized building.

I've been riding in the area for about 6 years and building trails for 4. All of my trail building has been on authorized trails, either new-school flow trails on BLM-managed land or sustainable bench-cut XC-oriented trails on OSU research forests. It's all been as a part of working with Team Dirt, a local IMBA chapter.

There's a big legacy of unauthorized trails around here going back about 30 years. The oldest ones are old-school fall line. A lot of the trails are simply ridden-in through the duff, not even rake-and-ride. Some of the more recent ones are built with technical ride features, berms, etc. In the past four years we've started to see a shift in landowner attitude towards these trails, where they are being adopted and brought in-line with standards, typically guided by a GQTE-type document. We have also had opportunities on local (OSU-managed) properties to build new sustainable bench-cut trails to replace those lost in harvest areas, and been able to expand on those opportunities onto private lands as owners see what we're able to accomplish.

There's an even longer legacy of old trails that dates back to the early 20th century (or even older), largely in Forest Service-managed lands. As logging in Oregon has faded, many of those trails have fallen into misuse or decay, and it's been mountain bikers that have kept them alive, brought them back, and brought in tourists to ride them. The canonical example would be Oakridge, which is smack dab in the Middle Fork District of the Willamette National Forest. All of the work has been authorized, with participation from USFS managers, many of whom ride.

And it keeps getting better. Trail groups have built up enough trust with land managers to get NEW trail segments approved (Lawler extension, Cloverpatch-Alpine Tie, Dead Mountain) and more and more old trails resurrected (O'Leary (which was revived by MTBR forum posters), Bunchgrass, Grasshopper).

With organizations like Trans-Cascadia and the Oregon Timber Trail Alliance coming into the mix, last year there was a single weekend work party that restored an entire network of trails in the Detroit Ranger District with volunteers from all over Oregon. That last one was interesting because the Detroit district management doesn't have the riders like the Middle Fork does, so it really was a case of the volunteers approaching the USFS and getting approval to keep it open in the long term. It's culmination of over a decade of building trust and volunteers partnering with USFS managers.

It's not great everywhere. The Santiam National Forest doesn't really have many mountain biking opportunities, and there's this one guy doing unauthorized builds on Marys Peak for a few years now to try and slow down mountain bikers. He does it by smoothing the tread and taking out technical features, which only serves to hinder his goals. He's also a terrible trail builder in general (lots of cupping in the tread and poorly-anchored wood work just for starters).

Even with that aside, it could be better. We don't have challenging natural (technical) trails, really. Nothing like what Washington has at Tiger Mountain for example. I'm amazed by the support that Evergreen gets from the state DNR. And don't even get me started about Duthie Hill, which is a King County Park, holy **** it's amazing.

So, yeah, work with your land managers, educate them, build trust, show up to volunteer!


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> He is clueless and entitled.


Now that's not very nice. Not practicing what YOU preach and still won't answer my question. :nono:


----------



## Smithhammer (Jul 18, 2015)

Switchblade2 said:


> ....Without smith giving a list it's just isn't believeable yet what has been accomplished in his area.


I have no need to pander to your BS. As evasive said, I have mentioned plenty where I live and ride, and quite a few of those trails were built illegally but have since been adopted. More excellent trails continue to be built now, in partnership with LMAs. Others on here have confirmed this. Try doing your own homework before leaping to self-serving conclusions and casting doubts on others just because it doesn't happen to jive with your own experience.. Oh wait - that's just what continually do, isn't it?

Regardless, I'm done responding to your crap. You're on the 'ignore list.'


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Now that's not very nice. Not practicing what YOU preach and still won't answer my question. :nono:


The question was riding on unsanctioned trails? We all do it. USFS and BLM policy is illegal only if posted closed. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. Again, your question has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. It's not even remotely similar to building unsanctioned trail on public or private land without the land manager or owner's permission. Not sure why that's so difficult to understand.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

armii said:


> Yeah, federal agencies aren't needed, none of them work. Who needs the FDA, USDA, DOD, DOJ, DOT, The Treasury Department, DOVA, DOS, or the Executive Office of the President, all useless lets get rid of them.


I guess I'm OK with that just as long as we can keep the Department of Redundancy Department. And of course the Natural Guard. And as long as we can count on it that those damn truss-pressers will be persecuted. If so I'm all in.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Boris Badenov said:


> Fair point. I've advocated adopt-a-trail programs in the past. I sat down with the FS and suggested there is a progression they should go through to maintain the existing trail system, and it should start with people who use and love those trails. The local volunteer coordinator at the FS told me if they did start using volunteers more, they would be responsible for them and have to train them. They said no thanks. Instead, they embraced something that is typical of government agencies, the Fee Demo program. They tried it out in Sedona at first. They said it was a well thought out program that would raise money to pay government workers to build and maintain trails. I think they wanted $6 to use the trails. They also claimed they were going to improve parking areas with the fees. They did. They installed $75,000 auto-pay kiosks. Then they began using the fees to hire law enforcement guys to make sure people were paying to use the trails. Then they had to use the money to buy the law enforcement guys new law enforcement trucks. Plus benefits for them like health care, sick time, vacation time, work comp claims when they twist their ankles, etc.
> 
> Then the FS needed to go visit shops in Sedona and ask them if they would be willing to put a sign in the window saying you can purchase a Red Rocks Pass at that location. Guess what almost all of the merchants said to them? Maybe we can place those Red Rock Passes right next to our newest bumper stickers that read; Can't See The Forest Thru the Fees. In other words, the FS couldn't find too many local merchants that supported the fee program.
> 
> ...


Holy smokes ?. Reading some of these posts makes me appreciate living east of the big river more and more. It really is much more like the real "Wild West" in many areas out here.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

rockman said:


> The question was riding on unsanctioned trails? We all do it. USFS and BLM policy is illegal only if posted closed. Otherwise, it's a non-issue. Again, your question has nothing to do with the discussion in this thread. It's not even remotely similar to building unsanctioned trail on public or private land without the land manager or owner's permission. Not sure why that's so difficult to understand.


Well in the state where I live it is LEGAL to access and recreate on private land unless it's posted with no trespassing or no hunting signs. And even if it is posted, or not, and a trespasser gets injured while recreating on the private land, the land owner isn't held liable.

It's just kinda queer that some people poo poo rogue trail building yet they ride rogue trail.

Seems like there's a tendency for MTB advocacy groups to make a bigger attention drawing deal about rogue trail building when "dealing" with land managers/owners than need be. Like it gives them something to puff their chests out about as part of their big sell to get trail building permission. Such a business.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Holy smokes 😳. Reading some of these posts makes me appreciate living east of the big river more and more. It really is much more like the real "Wild West" in many areas out here.


There are real differences between USFS regions. The Southwestern Region is a **** show in some respects. Here in the Northern Region our local forest staff are trying to engage all the volunteer organizations they can, and they advocate for grant funding for those groups in RTP and RAC cycles. Intermountain Region seems pretty good too, from my limited interactions with them.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Holy smokes ?. Reading some of these posts makes me appreciate living east of the big river more and more. It really is much more like the real "Wild West" in many areas out here.


That's cool that we're both where we want to be, it sounds totally nuts back east to me. Crowded as fork! I got 3 million acres in my back yard that I'm free to get lost in and there's plenty of trails so I don't need to bother making my own.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

evasive said:


> There are real differences between USFS regions. The Southwestern Region is a **** show in some respects.


SW is the best  don't listen to boris!


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> SW is the best  don't listen to boris!


A former Regional Forester is a family friend. I've heard some of his perspective, and read a lot of articles here and there.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

evasive said:


> There are real differences between USFS regions. The Southwestern Region is a **** show in some respects. Here in the Northern Region our local forest staff are trying to engage all the volunteer organizations they can, and they advocate for grant funding for those groups in RTP and RAC cycles. Intermountain Region seems pretty good too, from my limited interactions with them.


Interesting. Thank you for sharing that.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

evasive said:


> A former Regional Forester is a family friend. I've heard some of his perspective, and read a lot of articles here and there.


As far as bureaucracy goes you may be right but when I'm in the backcountry that's all meaningless to me


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> That's cool that we're both where we want to be, it sounds totally nuts back east to me. Crowded as fork! I got 3 million acres in my back yard that I'm free to get lost in and there's plenty of trails so I don't need to bother making my own.


Crowded in many areas yes, but in many other areas you'll never see another rider out in the wilds on the trails. Many areas around me are like that. I don't need to bother making my own either, but I enjoy the craft so it's an ongoing project for decades now. And no ones been butt hurt in the PROCESS. Except for on MTBR 😂


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Crowded in many areas yes, but in many other areas you'll never see another rider out in the wilds on the trails. Many areas around me are like that. I don't need to bother making my own either, but I enjoy the craft so it's an ongoing project for decades now. And no ones been butt hurt in the process.? Except for on MTBR ?


You forgot to capitalize PROCESS!

and no one actually gets bh around here either except for in the interwebz.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> As far as bureaucracy goes you may be right but when I'm in the backcountry that's all meaningless to me


🙂👍👍



----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> You forgot to capitalize PROCESS!
> .


Fixed it thanx!!!


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Fixed it thanx!!!


:thumbsup:


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> There are real differences between USFS regions.


This seems to be true. I am amazed at how well the FS and local groups like COTA work together in Oregon. My riding friends in Bend tell me about proposals made during the winter that get started as soon as the snow melts. They look back and see that NEPA was done years ago on several areas, and tell the public that it doesn't need further NEPA work to delay new trail construction within that area. Volunteer groups are allowed to build very challenging trails that have never been approved (yet) in Flagstaff. They do have to avoid some trails for seasonal concerns of wildlife, as I recall, but they have opened more new trails in a couple years than we have in over ten years.

The unsanctioned trails in the southwest, particularly in Sedona, have drawn riders from all around the world. You can make a case for Sedona being the sports Mecca, like Moab was in the early days. The trails they fly in to ride are trails designed and built by people like Switchblade, or by Switchblade. The consequences are that it made Sedona the center of the mountain biking world.

While one group of riders used MTBR to declare those unsanctioned trails would ruin future access to trails for all of us, those of us who spent our time actually riding those trails in Sedona, saw the FS gradually adopt them into their system of trails. From unsanctioned to legal and maintained by the FS, time and time again. None of the naysayers ever posted and said they were wrong. They continue to make the same claims. Some have even stated they have never been to Sedona to ride any trails.

I have my differences with some of the local land managers in Arizona, but I wouldn't live anywhere else. How many miles have most of you been able to ride the past couple months? We are expecting our first 80 degree day of this year on Monday. Today I met several riders from Ontario, Canada. This is our high season.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Not gonna lie, 80 degrees sounds lovely right now. That's 70 degrees warmer than at my house right now. Goodnight friends and friends. 😇


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Guys, the rog will never be tamed or swayed!

I use to see eye to eye with him, I am a New Englander after all. However traveling the country and studying how other folks do it I wish we had a different culture. 

The NEMBA boys will argue otherwise (group mentality). But rogue building is more of a norm here than anywhere else I’ve been or read about. 

Largely that’s because of the culture. LMs don’t want “extra work” and riders “don’t want to share”. New Englanders are stubborn and secretive. And hold fast to old ways. 

It’s a shame, these are after all public lands (where they aren’t my opinions differ). But the lack of management and antiquated ideas about management are sad to me. 

However to answer the original idea of the post, no unsanctioned (or poorly sanctioned) building doesn’t negatively affect riders in New England much. It’s what the LMs and riders want. “Hush hush” handshake agreements because it’s small town politics etc.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

iceboxsteve said:


> . It's what the LMs and riders want. "Hush hush" handshake agreements because it's small town politics etc.


It's perfect IMO.
Get **** done with a minimum of bureaucracy and BS. Sign me up!


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's perfect IMO.
> Get **** done with a minimum of bureaucracy and BS. Sign me up!


Exhibit A of the "New England mentality" I mentioned.

I tend to believe public land management and policy should be a bit more professional, open to the public, and inclusive.

Anyway, this isn't the thread for that discussion. Point is unsanctioned (or poorly sanctioned) trail building does not have consequences in the northeast.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Boris Badenov said:


> This seems to be true. I am amazed at how well the FS and local groups like COTA work together in Oregon. My riding friends in Bend tell me about proposals made during the winter that get started as soon as the snow melts. They look back and see that NEPA was done years ago on several areas, and tell the public that it doesn't need further NEPA work to delay new trail construction within that area. Volunteer groups are allowed to build very challenging trails that have never been approved (yet) in Flagstaff. They do have to avoid some trails for seasonal concerns of wildlife, as I recall, but they have opened more new trails in a couple years than we have in over ten years.
> 
> The unsanctioned trails in the southwest, particularly in Sedona, have drawn riders from all around the world. You can make a case for Sedona being the sports Mecca, like Moab was in the early days. The trails they fly in to ride are trails designed and built by people like Switchblade, or by Switchblade. The consequences are that it made Sedona the center of the mountain biking world.
> 
> ...


 Here in MA we pedal year round. I " try" to embrace the 4 seasons. I like to think about no bugs or poison ivy when it's say 20 F or so. I tend to overheat, so I'd much rather it be 55 than 80F. Dry and desert? Just not for me. Forest for shade cover, lakes to swim in post ride, some loam and pine needles on the trails? Sign me up. Cheers.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

iceboxsteve said:


> Anyway, this isn't the thread for that discussion.


So after YOU brought it up and had your say on the matter, NOW it's not the right thread?

Speaking of BS...


----------



## clockwork (Dec 9, 2006)

leeboh said:


> Dry and desert? Just not for me. Forest for shade cover, lakes to swim in post ride, some loam and pine needles on the trails? Sign me up. Cheers.


Clearly you haven't been to Arizona as we have all of that. I spend most of my time in the mountains at 7000ft+ which is only 1hr20m from my door step and I live in the heart of the desert. I love I can ride year round and in more varied terrain than any other state I have had the chance to ride in or drive through besides Utah.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Maybe it doesn't apply in the northeast but the consequences of unsanctioned building sure as hell does in the west on public land. Ask Switchblade if the price he paid to leave his legacy was worth it. My guess is he'd say yes but banned from not one but three national forests (Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto) as well as being fined is a stiff penalty to pay. On the other hand, I doubt the land manager would have had the balls to build some of the iconic trails in Sedona. But at least in the southwest, that horse has left the barn. The era of illegal trail building is largely over.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> So after YOU brought it up and had your say on the matter, NOW it's not the right thread?
> 
> Speaking of BS...


Um no? I was posting my opinion about unsanctioned building in the NE and the consequences associated. In regards to the OP.

My line about "not the right thread" was that discussing our opinions on why and how the northeast is behind the times as far as public land management goes and how it's a bummer is not appropriate here. We were getting off track.



rockman said:


> Maybe it doesn't apply in the northeast but the consequences of unsanctioned building sure as hell does in the west on public land.


I don't agree with the unsanctioned and poorly sandctioned building done in the northeast. I would love to see more competent and engaged LMs who seek more mature and public ways of managing their lands. But that's our culture.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's perfect IMO.
> Get **** done with a minimum of bureaucracy and BS. Sign me up!


Right?!👍

I remember when I was the lead organizer for the original Cape Cod NEMBAfest weekend in 1999. We needed some additional Hero sections and also a route for the expert loop to connect to TOT without having to ride the road from the venue and back. Well I'd built a ton of unsanctioned trails with a coupla moto guys who would help "burn" them in. They are VERY steep demanding trails and would be perfect. Well in order to arrow a loop I had to get in touch with the head of conservation for that zone. When I met with him he agreed to let me arrow it but the last thing he said was, "boy you sure have spent a lot of time out in these woods now haven't ya?" I looked at him and said, "yup, nice woods they are." He just looked at me and said, "we'll have at it, but I don't want to hear anything about it" with a slightly half smile crooked grin lol I swear to god it was classic. Goin on 20 years ago now.😂

Ya we got it pretty dAmn good out here. "Birdwatching" FTW.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

iceboxsteve said:


> Um no? I was posting my opinion about unsanctioned building in the NE and the consequences associated. In regards to the OP.
> 
> My line about "not the right thread" was that discussing our opinions on why and how the northeast is behind the times as far as public land management goes and how it's a bummer is not appropriate here. We were getting off track.
> 
> I don't agree with the unsanctioned and poorly sandctioned building done in the northeast. I would love to see more competent and engaged LMs who seek more mature and public ways of managing their lands. But that's our culture.


 Agree to disagree. Steve, where you living now? Outside of NE?


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

clockwork said:


> Clearly you haven't been to Arizona as we have all of that. I spend most of my time in the mountains at 7000ft+ which is only 1hr20m from my door step and I live in the heart of the desert. I love I can ride year round and in more varied terrain than any other state I have had the chance to ride in or drive through besides Utah.


 Nope, never visited. I get the variety, cool. You live in the desert, just not my cup of tea. 1 hr, 20 minutes? Trails are 200 yds from my driveway.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

leeboh said:


> Agree to disagree. Steve, where you living now? Outside of NE?


I'd rather not fight in this thread too!

I will say I think VT is vastly different from other NE states. And while my opinions are broad, what I see from a big picture standpoint, I stand by them.

Also what I talk about is the norm where I know best, CT. The rogue building is intense here with no signs of slowing and no signs of care from LMs. Western Mass from what I have seen is similar, recently it seems DCR stepped in to get things under control.

I'm still a tax paying resident of CT and extremely unhappy about the way things are going in state.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

iceboxsteve said:


> I don't agree with the unsanctioned and poorly sandctioned building done in the northeast. I would love to see more competent and engaged LMs who seek more mature and public ways of managing their lands. But that's our culture.


You'd rather see everything choked up in bureaucracy? 
Sounds like the people in heavily managed areas have found that they need to do just as much if not more unsanctioned building just to get around all the BS, with the other option being that little would get done, and what did get done would take forever and cost a fortune. I don't see how that's something to wish for.

Also, as you say yourself, both the LMs and the riders are getting exactly what they want. So if all the stakeholders are happy, what's the problem? Why would you want to change something that's seems to be working fine for everyone involved? 
"If it ain't broke, why 'fix' it?"


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

HacksawReynolds said:


> We are all adults here, we can make decisions for ourselves. I do what I do and am just sharing how the other half live as this thread is related to rogue trail building.
> 
> Fortunately riding here during and after monsoon rains is totally fine for the trails. We drain well.


Both are perfect examples of my point. I don't really care if that's what you do, but you post in very general terms and argue your points as if they are true everywhere. I've already said I can show you a trail we lost due to rogue construction in my network and I could (but won't) show you the two weeks of emails it took to calm the land manager down and get our advocacy efforts back on track.

All I'm saying is posting as if rogue building is blanket acceptable is reckless. If someone in my area reads your posts and takes it as validation then you've caused me personally, as well as my whole riding community, a big problem.

Your argument does not hold up, just the same that it wouldn't hold up if you were posting online promoting drug use or any other illegal behavior. I'm not saying the acts are equal, but promoting bad behavior and then saying 'we're all adults' is just not a valid argument.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

rockman said:


> Maybe it doesn't apply in the northeast but the consequences of unsanctioned building sure as hell does in the west on public land. Ask Switchblade if the price he paid to leave his legacy was worth it. My guess is he'd say yes but banned from not one but three national forests (Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto) as well as being fined is a stiff penalty to pay. On the other hand, I doubt the land manager would have had the balls to build some of the iconic trails in Sedona. But at least in the southwest, that horse has left the barn. The era of illegal trail building is largely over.


So what may I ask was the tipping point?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

iceboxsteve said:


> I'd rather not fight in this thread too!
> 
> I will say I think VT is vastly different from other NE states. And while my opinions are broad, what I see from a big picture standpoint, I stand by them.
> 
> ...


VMBA is an abomination.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

HacksawReynolds said:


> So what may I ask was the tipping point?


The land manager woke up for one. There have been at least 4 folks taken to court in Sedona for illegal trail building. The same LEO is now apparently conducting an investigation in our district of the same national forest although it's hard to get confirmation on that. I do know that game cameras have been installed on a couple of trails. There are no secret handshake trails anymore. What was once word of mouth private reserve is now the toast of Strava and social media. Even the owner of mtbr posted in a thread his pics and a video of a secret stealth trail in Sedona called Tomahawk. This trail is now closed and eradicated. At least in my neck of the woods there is no more low-hanging fruit or areas suitable for a personal little rake and ride affair. The terrain is steep and rocky and requires a serious build with tools. It's hard to get away with, especially when the trails are also being patrolled by the Sierra Club.

It's easy to make the argument than building unauthorized trails on public land is a selfish action. It's also easy to make the argument that a trail itself is damage to the resource. So, my two cents if you've got the balls to do it then it had better well be a damn good work product. Switchblade is an awesome trail builder. Unfortunately he doesn't work well with others and that's party what got him in hot water. Too often, the trails that get burned in around here are fall line and unsustainable. It gives those of us trying to advocate for more and better trails a black eye and only serves to give the environmental groups more ammunition.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

rockman said:


> The land manager woke up for one. There have been at least 4 folks taken to court in Sedona for illegal trail building. The same LEO is now apparently conducting an investigation in our district of the same national forest although it's hard to get confirmation on that. I do know that game cameras have been installed on a couple of trails. There are no secret handshake trails anymore. What was once word of mouth private reserve is now the toast of Strava and social media. Even the owner of mtbr posted in a thread his pics and a video of a secret stealth trail in Sedona called Tomahawk. This trail is now closed and eradicated. At least in my neck of the woods there is no more low-hanging fruit or areas suitable for a personal little rake and ride affair. The terrain is steep and rocky and requires a serious build with tools. It's hard to get away with, especially when the trails are also being patrolled by the Sierra Club.
> 
> It's easy to make the argument than building unauthorized trails on public land is a selfish action. It's also easy to make the argument that a trail itself is damage to the resource. So, my two cents if you've got the balls to do it then it had better well be a damn good work product. Switchblade is an awesome trail builder. Unfortunately he doesn't work well with others and that's party what got him in hot water. Too often, the trails that get burned in around here are fall line and unsustainable. It gives those of us trying to advocate for more and better trails a black eye and only serves to give the environmental groups more ammunition.


Gotcha. Do you think that MTB advocacy in your area has "highlighted" rogue building which may have woken up the right or wrong people?


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Gotcha. Do you think that MTB advocacy in your area has "highlighted" rogue building which may have woken up the right or wrong people?


That's an interesting premise but I don't think so. We don't promote or market the area's trails as a riding destination or anything like that. We have no position on social trails other than suggesting that they are meeting a need that is otherwise going unmet by the forest service. To their credit, they have not closed many either. However, the very presence of advanced trails on a mountain that many consider very special and an area of sensitive habitat and wildlife species is a target. The FS has been accused of allowing mtn bikers to have undue influence in land management and the Sierra Club has gone so far as to suggest that they are in collusion with and providing special favors in trade for ongoing volunteer trail work. I know that because we have acquired the correspondence through FOIA. So, continued unsanctioned building does not help as we continue to grow partnerships with the land manager as well as the city and county.

But I see your point. Maybe if there was no mtn bike advocacy group in the area that maybe things could have gone on in perpetuity. But for how long and indeed most of the advanced steep trails are showing the wear and tear. They are fun but not aligned properly and many are ditches with multiple braids. Even so, there are many who think that or are dismayed at any changes to trails. The FS is willing to overlook most transgressions (see Boris's posts) but one thing that really invokes action is the building of stunts. For example, we had a really fun trail called Flying Fish that existed for 20+ years but then some folks started building stunts on it. And the rest is history and the trail now closed.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Here in Washington we had a massive dam burst. For decades almost no trail building could happen on state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land. Then the director of the local bike club took a position with DNR in charge of recreation. Since then, there's been an explosion of new trails created by both the club and DNR. Some these new trails are double-black diamond. There's more than enough going on here to keep the most dedicated builders busy for a long time. There's no longer any reason or point to building rogue trails here.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Gotcha. Do you think that MTB advocacy in your area has "highlighted" rogue building which may have woken up the right or wrong people?


Ignoring my last post? I was hoping it'd help you understand my point of view, or at least cue you to help me understand yours.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

evasive said:


> The reason for the travel restriction is the concern that if new trails give mountain bikers access to new landscapes, pirate trails will proliferate.


Absolutely will occur. Portland's Forest Park is a great example of this. They may be trails the homeless built, but they are used by mt. bikes and joggers that find them.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Gotcha. Do you think that MTB advocacy in your area has "highlighted" rogue building which may have woken up the right or wrong people?


I think we've seen a little of that in my area, but the biggest issues that rogue builders have faced (in terms of their trails getting shut down), is on them, and it's the sanctioned builders are the ones that are doing the damage control with the land managers to get some of those trails improved, sanctioned, and re-opened.

The sanctioned building was getting a lot of good publicity, and I noticed a definite up-tick in very brazen rogue building around that same time. I can't say one is for certain related to the other, but it sure seemed like a bit of "me too" building going on by folks that couldn't distinguish the difference between sanctioned trail building and rogue. So, they put unsanctioned trail in the most in-your-face and sure to be noticed locations.

So, rogue building went from decades of being mostly low-key work with only sporadic and minimal efforts by the land managers to curb it (mostly removing rickety wooden stunts), to it being a very obvious and high-profile activity that was also made worse because of strava and social media.

It used to take years for folks to learn where are the unsanctioned trails were, but nowdays, anybody can hop on Strava and find virtually every trail out there.

So, as in Rockman's case, our local land managers woke up, got LEOs involved, and the blowback from rogue building not only got a bunch of those trails closed, it has also damaged relationships that were bearing fruit for sanctioned builds.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

pdxmark said:


> Absolutely will occur. Portland's Forest Park is a great example of this. They may be trails the homeless built, but they are used by mt. bikes and joggers that find them.


Yes, but the issue I raised was bikers building new trails, not riding trails they happen across.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

rockman said:


> That's an interesting premise but I don't think so. We don't promote or market the area's trails as a riding destination or anything like that. We have no position on social trails other than suggesting that they are meeting a need that is otherwise going unmet by the forest service. To their credit, they have not closed many either. However, the very presence of advanced trails on a mountain that many consider very special and an area of sensitive habitat and wildlife species is a target. The FS has been accused of allowing mtn bikers to have undue influence in land management and the Sierra Club has gone so far as to suggest that they are in collusion with and providing special favors in trade for ongoing volunteer trail work. I know that because we have acquired the correspondence through FOIA. So, continued unsanctioned building does not help as we continue to grow partnerships with the land manager as well as the city and county.
> 
> But I see your point. Maybe if there was no mtn bike advocacy group in the area that maybe things could have gone on in perpetuity. But for how long and indeed most of the advanced steep trails are showing the wear and tear. They are fun but not aligned properly and many are ditches with multiple braids. Even so, there are many who think that or are dismayed at any changes to trails. The FS is willing to overlook most transgressions (see Boris's posts) but one thing that really invokes action is the building of stunts. For example, we had a really fun trail called Flying Fish that existed for 20+ years but then some folks started building stunts on it. And the rest is history and the trail now closed.
> 
> View attachment 1179951


Ugh that's a bummer. There's an area near where my in laws live where I ride when we visit that has dozens of miles of rogue trails on 10's of thousands of acres of mostly private land that has been used by MTB's and moto's for well over 30 years with no issues. Great mix of riding. One area is seeing some crazy man made stunts being built and trees surrounding the trails are being cut to build the stunts. My fear is that it's just a matter of time.......

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my question.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

TheDwayyo said:


> Ignoring my last post? I was hoping it'd help you understand my point of view, or at least cue you to help me understand yours.


Easy guy, I worked my @ss off today and just finally gotta chance to sit down and peruse thru here with a hot cup of ginger tea. Facking cold out brrrrrrr!


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

twd953 said:


> I think we've seen a little of that in my area, but the biggest issues that rogue builders have faced (in terms of their trails getting shut down), is on them, and it's the sanctioned builders are the ones that are doing the damage control with the land managers to get some of those trails improved, sanctioned, and re-opened.
> 
> The sanctioned building was getting a lot of good publicity, and I noticed a definite up-tick in very brazen rogue building around that same time. I can't say one is for certain related to the other, but it sure seemed like a bit of "me too" building going on by folks that couldn't distinguish the difference between sanctioned trail building and rogue. So, they put unsanctioned trail in the most in-your-face and sure to be noticed locations.
> 
> ...


Yup it all makes perfect sense which is why I asked.

Oh ya and phuck STRAVA.?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

iceboxsteve said:


> I'd rather not fight in this thread too!
> 
> I will say I think VT is vastly different from other NE states. And while my opinions are broad, what I see from a big picture standpoint, I stand by them.
> 
> ...


The riding in CT and Western Mass is overall some of the best riding in New England IMO. Both places offer all you need. Tech and elevation (even in CT)

So do you not ride in CT since you are so unhappy with how things roll there? You probably shouldn't.

Maybe you should move to VT. I mean it's where many many CT folk transplant themselves.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rockman said:


> That's an interesting premise but I don't think so. We don't promote or market the area's trails as a riding destination or anything like that. We have no position on social trails other than suggesting that they are meeting a need that is otherwise going unmet by the forest service. To their credit, they have not closed many either. However, the very presence of advanced trails on a mountain that many consider very special and an area of sensitive habitat and wildlife species is a target. The FS has been accused of allowing mtn bikers to have undue influence in land management and the Sierra Club has gone so far as to suggest that they are in collusion with and providing special favors in trade for ongoing volunteer trail work. I know that because we have acquired the correspondence through FOIA. So, continued unsanctioned building does not help as we continue to grow partnerships with the land manager as well as the city and county.
> 
> But I see your point. Maybe if there was no mtn bike advocacy group in the area that maybe things could have gone on in perpetuity. But for how long and indeed most of the advanced steep trails are showing the wear and tear. They are fun but not aligned properly and many are ditches with multiple braids. Even so, there are many who think that or are dismayed at any changes to trails. The FS is willing to overlook most transgressions (see Boris's posts) but one thing that really invokes action is the building of stunts. For example, we had a really fun trail called Flying Fish that existed for 20+ years but then some folks started building stunts on it. And the rest is history and the trail now closed.
> 
> View attachment 1179951


Something similar has been happening off and on in my local riding area. The trails have existed for longer than I have been alive (currently 39) in an area that was a mining quarry, then farmland, then 4x4 and moto trails and is now owned by California Fish n Game. Parts of it have been "closed" to all access by Fish n Game. However the enforcement was pretty lax. Anyone who comes to the area to recreate will have a very hard time telling what is official trails and what is not, the areas all blend together and run into privately owned land. I have lived in the area for 10 years and ride out there once a week. About 5-6 years ago some guys/kids? I don't really know who, built a new rogue trail was built with a number of large gap jumps and big berms. Soon after kids were getting air lifted out by emergency services as the jumps were obviously too big of a skill level for some riders. I am pretty sure this brought the trails to the attention of Fish n Game who before this time ignored the trails that had been in existence for decades. They came out and bull-dozed the jump line, but left all the other trails alone.

Within a few weeks the jumps were back and again hospital trips, helicopters, etc....

In 2016 a second technical trail that had a bunch of big gap jumps at the start of it was built, so now there were 2 of these trails in close proximity.

Fast forward to late 2017 and the enforcement came back strong:
http://forums.mtbr.com/california-s...ging-trails-part-closure-process-1060133.html

They bull dozed both the Jump lines in the past few weeks when the sabotage shown above did not work and rocks were just moved.

Again the old trails with basic berms that have been there since before Fish n Game took over the land have been left alone and are used daily by a huge variety of trail users, Hikers, MTBers, Horseback riders, runners, etc.

If the rogue trail builders had just left the existing trail system in place I feel that less spotlight would be put on the location and Fish n Game would of continued a policy of Management via ignorance.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

TheDwayyo said:


> Ignoring my last post? I was hoping it'd help you understand my point of view, or at least cue you to help me understand yours.


Ok, I totally understand your point of view and can respect it. I would never want my posts to cause you or anyone issues in your area or theirs.

Even tho it seems as tho rogue trail was "ok" in many or maybe even most areas outside of New England before IMBA and other advocacy groups became a thing, I see that that has changed, not out here so much, but definitely out there.

It's unfortunate but not unexpected to hear about an uptick in "in your face" rogue trail building in some areas where advocacy groups have pushed to have legal sanctioned trail building approved which attracts MANY more riders thru marketing, social media, and STRAVA. Areas that were low profile and quiet before are becoming louder and complicated in some cases.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Wooden stunts in particular, or anything that involves a dig pit, are things that pull a lot of attention. If you're building that sort of stuff 'under the radar', you need to really choose your spot carefully. Definitely not something that you should be doing in or along an established trail system on public land.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Agreed^^^^^^^^^

Which is why I'm such a fan/proponent of very low impact trail creating. No digging, no duff molestation. Non attention grabbing trail. Plenty of natural rock and trannies can be incorporated without the use of a shovel or removing the earths durable water draining duff. A proper rogue trail is one that can vanish after one moderately windy day of autumn leaf fall. If you created it, then you know where it goes. For others, they wouldn't even know that there's a trail there or which way to go in till its leaf packed by tire, but even then......


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Maybe you should move to VT. I mean it's where many many CT folk transplant themselves.


Naw, thinking southern ME/NH. Gunna come sanitize the stuff you're doing I think.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

TheDwayyo said:


> Both are perfect examples of my point. I don't really care if that's what you do, but you post in very general terms and argue your points as if they are true everywhere. I've already said I can show you a trail we lost due to rogue construction in my network and I could (but won't) show you the two weeks of emails it took to calm the land manager down and get our advocacy efforts back on track.
> 
> *Your problem is your land manager, not rogue trail builders. No competent land manager would blame a dedicated group of mountain bikers for the unauthorized work done by young riders looking to build some unsustainable thrill ride. Give me the name of the trail you lost and the name of the land manager. I want to follow up on your story.*
> 
> ...


*Here is your argument. If I promote drug use on this forum, and you go kill yourself by taking drugs, I'm to blame for you killing yourself. That is your idea of a valid argument? It's nonsense. I've been told by people on these forums to go ride Highline Trail in Sedona. But then I crashed and got hurt, so they must be to blame. Nope, that isn't how it works. If rogue trail building accomplishes it's objective 95% of the time, you seem to believe that those few failures make all rogue building a waste of time and a threat to you personally. If you lost one trail, figure out how to get another better trail. You seem more than willing to throw fellow riders under the bus to get back in favor with your land manager. Figure it out. Your failures are not the fault of rogue trail building. *


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Switchblade2 said:


> Hack I once built a trail at the Whistler Bike Park. It took me one day to get permission to build it and about three weeks to build it. It went through a dense new growth forest, so I had to cut out about 100 trees to establish a sustainable line. I was given a chainsaw by the Park trail foreman so it was an easy task to cut the trees.
> 
> The duff was about 4-6" deep and it was like riding on a magic carpet. Some sections of trail were on steep granite faces and one section was down about a fifty foot groove in the cliff face.
> 
> ...


Routing is THE key to be sure. Mmmmm that magic carpet.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

iceboxsteve said:


> Naw, thinking southern ME/NH. Gunna come sanitize the stuff you're doing I think.


You'd hate it here. Everything is too shoot from the hip for you. Nothing is organized or PC enough for you. And the riding sux.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Boris Badenov said:


> *Here is your argument. If I promote drug use on this forum, and you go kill yourself by taking drugs, I'm to blame for you killing yourself. That is your idea of a valid argument? It's nonsense. I've been told by people on these forums to go ride Highline Trail in Sedona. But then I crashed and got hurt, so they must be to blame. Nope, that isn't how it works. If rogue trail building accomplishes it's objective 95% of the time, you seem to believe that those few failures make all rogue building a waste of time and a threat to you personally. If you lost one trail, figure out how to get another better trail. You seem more than willing to throw fellow riders under the bus to get back in favor with your land manager. Figure to out. Your failures are not the fault of rogue trail building. *


❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Agreed^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Which is why I'm such a fan/proponent of very low impact trail creating. No digging, no duff molestation. Non attention grabbing trail. Plenty of natural rock and trannies can be incorporated without the use of a shovel or removing the earths durable water draining duff. A proper rogue trail is one that can vanish after one moderately windy day of autumn leaf fall. If you created it, then you know where it goes. For others, they wouldn't even know that there's a trail there or which way to go in till its leaf packed by tire, but even then......


Yep.

We've almost come full circle in this thread.

There are just some posters who appear to have difficulty grasping there is more than just one effective way to get trails built, and that may be largely dependent on where you live and the local culture.

Some seem to relish the rules and bureaucracy needed to build trails in their parts. Or, due to their own frustration they lash out at those who've found a way to avoid such obstacles - the low impact builders who follow the "no harm, no foul" mentality. They are deemed trouble makers by radicalizing that approach and painting them the evil, destructive, rogue builders.

East vs West....

Are people aware of the underlying mentality of many toward use of land? In the East, our country's cradle of its industrial revolution, the land has been viewed as a resource to be "used" - unfortunately. This is the highly pervasive mentality of those in the coal mining area, and later timber harvesting area, from which I come and have done much of my building. The West appears to hold an attitude of "protection" towards it lands and in keeping them "as is", which I think is good. This is of course all relatively speaking East vs. West - there are clearly exceptions.

When people see 40 ton coal trucks rolling through the woods everyday they generally don't get excited over a 6" wide trail scratched into the earth with a leaf rake by one guy.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Agreed^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Which is why I'm such a fan/proponent of very low impact trail creating. No digging, no duff molestation. Non attention grabbing trail. Plenty of natural rock and trannies can be incorporated without the use of a shovel or removing the earths durable water draining duff. A proper rogue trail is one that can vanish after one moderately windy day of autumn leaf fall. If you created it, then you know where it goes. For others, they wouldn't even know that there's a trail there or which way to go in till its leaf packed by tire, but even then......


We have a bunch of private stash trail at our cabin, don't really want a lot of people riding it, a collection of deer trails, old corridors, some new connectors. Will disappear in a few years if not used, and I like that too. I have built plenty of official trail, but I still enjoy linking cow and game trails, two tracks, logging and rail corridors, maybe a little bushwacking thrown in here and there. To me that is still what mountain biking is about.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

bsieb said:


> We have a bunch of private stash trail at our cabin, don't really want a lot of people riding it, a collection of deer trails, old corridors, some new connectors. Will disappear in a few years if not used, and I like that too. I have built plenty of official trail, but I still enjoy linking cow and game trails, two tracks, logging and rail corridors, maybe a little bushwacking thrown in here and there. To me that is still what mountain biking is about.


Yup love it. Nothing like having networks to oneself. Keeps you busy riding just to keep them ridden in. Selfish? No it's called self care.

Just got in from an unreal snow ride on trails that no one else uses. With all of the whacky weather we've had, any other networks that see any traffic are disaster ribbons of glare ice. No thanks. I keep stuff covered until it makes sense to boot pack groom it into tight narrow grippy non studded skinny tire bliss.

Well worth the work and effort.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

I'm not sure how it is in the East but on public land in the West there are two major stumbling blocks. The Endangered Species Act and the Historical Antiquities Act. Whether we like it or not the PROCESS begins there.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Relevant to the discussion:

Illegal bike trails and a Forest Service crackdown divide a town (End of the Trail Wars) - High Country News


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Where I live mountain biking began mostly on the old legacy trails from our open range grazing, and agricultural past. On trails which were created prior to mountain bikes. Most were poorly built pack trails prone to ruts and erosion. Some were remote and relatively unused. And they remained fairly pristine. Others were easily accessed. And they took more of a beating. But our rural population was fairly small. And the trails could handle the pressure with minimal maintenance. Then in the late 1990's we went through a phase where all of these nearly pristine remote trails were discovered by motorized users. Our population quadrupled in a few years. Mostly with urban and suburban flight people fleeing where they came from. A wave of people with no knowledge of backcountry etiquette In a matter of a few years we had a real mess in the back country from both motorized and mtb use. Criss crossing trails all over the place. I claim it is mostly motorized damage. Others disagree. The forest managers were in a panic to save our forests from disaster. And there seemed to be a lot of talk about closing many forms of access to the local trails. Anyhow, to make this story a little shorter, I will say that in order to keep mtb recreational access, the message had to get out to people to avoid making new unsanctioned trails. And more importantly, to get a reliable group of people to work with the forest service on reparation projects which they oversee. The mtb community really seems to be stepping up. The motorized and equestrian users, not so much.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Miker J said:


> There are just some posters who appear to have difficulty grasping there is more than just one effective way to get trails built, and that may be largely dependent on where you live and the local culture.
> 
> Some seem to relish the rules and bureaucracy needed to build trails in their parts. Or, due to their own frustration they lash out at those who've found a way to avoid such obstacles - the low impact builders who follow the "no harm, no foul" mentality. They are deemed trouble makers by radicalizing that approach and painting them the evil, destructive, rogue builders.


Nobody relishes bureaucracy. I'm thrilled that my group is able to build on city land where the process is orders of magnitude simpler than on federal land. And where there's no process established, then great - that's easier for everyone. But where there is a process, people who take it on themselves to bypass it undermine trust and relationships.



Miker J said:


> East vs West....
> 
> Are people aware of the underlying mentality of many toward use of land? In the East, our country's cradle of its industrial revolution, the land has been viewed as a resource to be "used" - unfortunately. This is the highly pervasive mentality of those in the coal mining area, and later timber harvesting area, from which I come and have done much of my building. The West appears to hold an attitude of "protection" towards it lands and in keeping them "as is", which I think is good. This is of course all relatively speaking East vs. West - there are clearly exceptions.
> 
> When people see 40 ton coal trucks rolling through the woods everyday they generally don't get excited over a 6" wide trail scratched into the earth with a leaf rake by one guy.


This made me laugh. The western US was settled and developed by exploiting the land to the hilt, whether mining, timber, or grazing. There are many legacy industrial landscapes all over the west, and a lot of active ones. It's almost impossible to go anywhere in Montana and not see old flumes or ditches, spoil piles from prospect holes, or collapsed adits. Smelters with slag piles and airborne arsenic and lead, tailings impoundments, acid mine drainage, clear cut landscapes, it's all here. Half the city of Butte was replaced with an open pit mine. I ride by an abandoned placer operation on many of my rides. There are plenty of log trucks driving by regularly.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

Yeah going to agree with evasive here. Clearly some folks just don’t get it. In the northeast the settlement and industrial movement was long ago. The reaction was very conservation minded. Only in the NE do I still find such an anti-mtb and pro-hiker attitude. Of course only in the NE do I see antiquated trail techniques still used (i.e. fall line to get to the top of a hill quickly). In fact this strong reaction to development and consequent conservation movement is so old that if you ask most mtb advocates, it is this attitude that prevents more trails. 

Also I’m sorry. But the trails Rog is describing are not trails. Some of you may do decent rogue work, but the work of most rogue New Englanders is pure rake and ride. It’s shitty trail. I hate the “small intestine” effect. “Let’s just put 100 miles in 40 acres because we want to ride a lot.” I’d rather have a few great trails than a ton of crappy trail. 

I grew up in the rogue world. I still ride raked trails sometimes. On private property where locals have the okay of land owners. 

The reason I think we can do better as a region and I despise the unsanctioned and poorly sanctioned secret handshake type work done in New England is because it occurs on public land.

Do what you want on your buddy’s land. But don’t circumnavigate the rules on public land. 

Furthermore I don’t want more beauracry. In fact I think it’s ridiculous logging and pipelines have NEPA exemptions but trails don’t. But I’m not going to say we should be building illegally to give the finger to a process we disagree with. I’d rather work to change that. 

I do think, on public lands, the process is important. Guys like Rog don’t know a damn thing about endangered species or special habitats. And don’t care. Sure I know trails don’t cause as much damage as a gas field, but I’m still going to do my due diligence because I value the environment. 

The process also produces more thoughtful trails that are relevant and appropriate. Instead of the dude who just wanders here and there making a spiderweb of crap that has no purpose or intent except to give him more miles to pedal. Planning and design are largely overlooked and a big reason why most trails where I’m from all feel the same and never seem to have a purpose except someone wanted more, more, more.


----------



## tbmaddux (May 22, 2012)

A few more unorganized thoughts.

1) Old-school fall-line (perpendicular to the contours) trail is common around here, mostly (but not always) legacy trail. It's also something that the wildlife do. In particular...

2) One of the recently (past few years) trails that was shut down was originally a wildlife trail. Then the hikers and runners found it, and after that the mountain bikers. You can see the people on foot going all over the place on the Strava heat map. Happy ending - trail runners funded ongoing sustainable bench-cut trails in the area with race entry fees, and they also have a mandate for building trail (you can't enter a race unless you put in some number of hours building).

3) Since I started riding I've done a few visits to SoCal and I'm struck by the erosion ruts and fall-line I find on authorized trails. Blows my mind. Even the worst trail I've ridden here in Oregon, in terms of how it's eroding, is better than these, and it's actually a creek during the wet season.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman as you know in Sedona there has never been an artifact discovered on a user created trail of historical significance that the land manger felt the need to bring in archeologists to do a $7,000 survey.
> 
> The historical record for our area is pretty well established and so far nothing has been discovered to change that record. On every FOIA request that I have done to get the archeological survey of each popular mountain biking system or adopted user created trail the USFS has told the Native American Nations in our area to not worry nothing was found on the trail site that they should loose sleep over.
> 
> ...


No entirely true. What about the metate that was being used as the lip of a jump? And your gross generalizations about how Native Americans view archeological studies or protection of cultural sights is myopic. As for our neck of the woods, believe me the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service takes their congressional mandate to protect endangered species and habitat very seriously.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

rockman said:


> What about the metate that was being used as the lip of a jump?


Seriously, someone did that?

The article I linked to above reported that a trail had been built through native ruins, but I could find no other information on that.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

ray.vermette said:


> Seriously, someone did that?
> 
> The article I linked to above reported that a trail had been built through native ruins, but I could find no other information on that.


Yes, it's true. On a unauthorized trail called Tequila Sunrise. Maybe Switchblade can corroborate my story but I head that from the District Rec Ranger at the time. The ironic part is that the individual that built the trail (now closed) is Native American. Now he may have done that on purpose but my point was partly that most of us wouldn't recognize an archy site even if we were standing on one. I'm a geologist and am always looking at rocks and such and it amazes me when I'm out with an archeologist and they start pointing stuff out. It takes a trained eye. Are the artifacts (generally flakes, litter, and cm size potsherds) important or not? That's not for me to decide.

That High Country News article is pretty lame. This is a much better synopsis of the consequences of unsanctioned trail building in Sedona. Quite a few pics of Switchblade as well. https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Sedrama-growing-pains-in-Sedona-April-2013.html


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

evasive said:


> Nobody relishes bureaucracy. I'm thrilled that my group is able to build on city land where the process is orders of magnitude simpler than on federal land. And where there's no process established, then great - that's easier for everyone. But where there is a process, people who take it on themselves to bypass it undermine trust and relationships.
> 
> This made me laugh. The western US was settled and developed by exploiting the land to the hilt, whether mining, timber, or grazing. There are many legacy industrial landscapes all over the west, and a lot of active ones. It's almost impossible to go anywhere in Montana and not see old flumes or ditches, spoil piles from prospect holes, or collapsed adits. Smelters with slag piles and airborne arsenic and lead, tailings impoundments, acid mine drainage, clear cut landscapes, it's all here. Half the city of Butte was replaced with an open pit mine. I ride by an abandoned placer operation on many of my rides. There are plenty of log trucks driving by regularly.


Bypassing an effective, productive process is not what being advocated. Painting this as such a black and white affair has been the shortcoming of many arguments in this thread. I was offering an explanation why legitimate builders may encounter different challenges depending on their location. Undermining the efforts of builders who follow an effective process is a bad thing.

Unfortunately I have encounter individuals who've relished the process, rules, regs, meetings - when they we not even really needed to get trails built.

I'd argue the notion that acre for acre lands available for trail building in the West have had less commercial/industrial pressure than lands in the East is reasonable. Accurate - debatable. Laughable, no.

I've been to Billings Montana, and other similar places out West and human impact is intense, but those areas seem to be offset by massive tracts of relatively well preserved lands. I've also lived in the coal regions of PA, seen mountain top removal in West Virginia, stayed in the urban sprawl of the whole east coast - and there has not been a relative portion of preserved lands set aside to offset that influence.

Anyway, I am getting off topic.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

iceboxsteve said:


> Yeah going to agree with evasive here. Clearly some folks just don't get it. In the northeast the settlement and industrial movement was long ago. The reaction was very conservation minded. Only in the NE do I still find such an anti-mtb and pro-hiker attitude. Of course only in the NE do I see antiquated trail techniques still used (i.e. fall line to get to the top of a hill quickly). In fact this strong reaction to development and consequent conservation movement is so old that if you ask most mtb advocates, it is this attitude that prevents more trails.
> 
> Also I'm sorry. But the trails Rog is describing are not trails. Some of you may do decent rogue work, but the work of most rogue New Englanders is pure rake and ride. It's shitty trail. I hate the "small intestine" effect. "Let's just put 100 miles in 40 acres because we want to ride a lot." I'd rather have a few great trails than a ton of crappy trail.
> 
> ...


So none of the trails where you grew up, or that you ride now even tho you hate them are actually trails because they are rake n ride trails?

And why don't you tell me more about my trails. Trails which you have never ridden.

Have you ever taken it upon yourself to actually do something positive concerning the trails in your area. Or do you just constantly b1tch about them. Then continue to ride them anyway.

So weird.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> Yes, it's true. On a unauthorized trail called Tequila Sunrise. Maybe Switchblade can corroborate my story but I head that from the District Rec Ranger at the time. The ironic part is that the individual that built the trail (now closed) is Native American. Now he may have done that on purpose but my point was partly that most of us wouldn't recognize an archy site even if we were standing on one. I'm a geologist and am always looking at rocks and such and it amazes me when I'm out with an archeologist and they start pointing stuff out. It takes a trained eye. Are the artifacts (generally flakes, litter, and cm size potsherds) important or not? That's not for me to decide.
> 
> That High Country News article is pretty lame. This is a much better synopsis of the consequences of unsanctioned trail building in Sedona. Quite a few pics of Switchblade as well. https://www.pinkbike.com/news/Sedrama-growing-pains-in-Sedona-April-2013.html


I didn't know that Drano is off limits. How do I get back to the cultural center at the end of a long ride when I'm several miles to the west, having just ridden Western Civilization and Last Frontier. Backtrack?

This, from the article Ray.Vermette linked to, reminded me of a ride I went on with these guys;



> "We did not cut a branch or move a rock; we rode everything in," says Rama. Sometimes they followed old cattle paths, but mostly they simply picked a starting point and an end point and wove their way through the shrubbery to get there. The final products were curvy and twisty and full of rocks, and encouraged exploration more than athleticism, says Rama. Riders would often take an hour or two to travel just a couple of miles, stopping to tell stories and smoke pot.


Rama has really let himself go. His teeth haven't changed, though.

It's funny about how you wrote about that low hanging fruit being all gone. I read that remark after returning from a reconnoitering ride with a friend, discussing new trail options in the Valley of the Sun. It does sound like, based on your recent posts, that I shook foot out of Flagstaff just in time. Those law dogs want a feather in their cap. Like Switch said, all it takes is removing an awkward step on a trail or cutting a limb off a tree. If you got photographed by a game camera, what celebrity or famous politician mask would you want to be wearing at the time? For me, it would have to be Teddy Roosevelt.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

I just ran across this post and read 75% of the posts. I may have missed something relevant but the posts were getting redundant. There were great, well thought out posts by both sides in this debate but I have to agree that those trying to make it a black/white issue are not being objective. 

As has been mentioned over and over, some of the best trails out there were rogue trails, built illegally but have now been officially adopted are are now legal. I'm the type who would never ride a trail that was marked as closed to mountain bikes. However, I ride in a county of 2.3 million people and ride trails all the time (and have for years) that I know are rogue trails. These trails have been ridden by hundreds of riders every weekend for 15-20 years. 

Furthermore, the best built trail system within 50+ miles of my house (that I'm aware of) is absolutely 100% rogue yet also ridden regularly. The builders did a fantastic job. It's so well established that there's directional markers and signage with trail names. Heck, it's even on Strava. It will all be gone in 3-5 years when houses are built.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

The quality of the social trials is what will get them adopted at some point. Many of the old well routed trails were done at a time when it was ok with the land manager, who had no official process at the time, especially in districts that were 50 years behind the times. So while I have built many miles of trail on my own, the land manager was ok with it because he didn't care about a little singletrack bike trail, he had bigger problems to manage. As times changed, these trails became recreational assets that were moved to official status through a streamlined process. That doesn't exist anymore even in the most backwards districts. Whole different game now, but rogue trails may still serve to force a process to mitigate them, which generally involves acknowledgement of the need for sanctioning trails and a plan to do that. You got to dance to the tune that's being played... most situations are unique.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Miker J said:


> I'd argue the notion that acre for acre lands available for trail building in the West have had less commercial/industrial pressure than lands in the East is reasonable. Accurate - debatable. Laughable, no.
> 
> I've been to Billings Montana, and other similar places out West and human impact is intense, but those areas seem to be offset by massive tracts of relatively well preserved lands. I've also lived in the coal regions of PA, seen mountain top removal in West Virginia, stayed in the urban sprawl of the whole east coast - and there has not been a relative portion of preserved lands set aside to offset that influence.
> 
> Anyway, I am getting off topic.


I'm not sure how you'd start to quantify that. What defines 'available for trail building?' I grew up in the mid-Atlantic and have worked and practiced geology from Virginia to Connecticut. I'm familiar with the issues you named. Just like any other resource, you mine coal where you find it. There is a lot of coal mining in the west, too. Not as much mountaintop removal, but that's because of geology, not culture. The big difference between east and west is that in the west most of the resource extraction was (and is) on public lands. For all the shortcomings, most public lands are managed for multiple uses, whereas private lands are subject to the owner's intent. That's what I think you're noticing, plus the difference in population density. What I laughed at is the notion that there's a western emphasis on conservation versus an eastern emphasis on exploitation. People out here have and would exploit the land to the hilt if they could. That's what's behind the idea of transferring federal land to the states.

Billings is a railroad town with some farming and a few refineries. While it's surrounded by a lot of rangeland that might look pristine to the casual eye, nearly every acre in the west has been impacted by over a century of heavy grazing. Many western streams are all screwed up from grazing, placer mining, and headwaters logging, but most people don't recognize that; to them that's just the way things are. It's the same thing with most timbered mountainsides. The forests are all jacked up, but again, most people see pristine woods and think they're supposed to be that way. And as I mentioned earlier, even in those pristine woods, you're always coming across signs of historic mining. The amount of labor that went into metals exploration and extraction out here blows my mind. And after that, somebody clearcut the hill.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Sorry, I am stopping this bickering and personal attacks before they get out of control. Stay on topic or stop posting.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Thank you^^^^^^


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

evasive said:


> I'm not sure how you'd start to quantify that. What defines 'available for trail building?' I grew up in the mid-Atlantic and have worked and practiced geology from Virginia to Connecticut. I'm familiar with the issues you named. Just like any other resource, you mine coal where you find it. There is a lot of coal mining in the west, too. Not as much mountaintop removal, but that's because of geology, not culture. The big difference between east and west is that in the west most of the resource extraction was (and is) on public lands. For all the shortcomings, most public lands are managed for multiple uses, whereas private lands are subject to the owner's intent. That's what I think you're noticing, plus the difference in population density. What I laughed at is the notion that there's a western emphasis on conservation versus an eastern emphasis on exploitation. People out here have and would exploit the land to the hilt if they could. That's what's behind the idea of transferring federal land to the states.
> 
> Billings is a railroad town with some farming and a few refineries. While it's surrounded by a lot of rangeland that might look pristine to the casual eye, nearly every acre in the west has been impacted by over a century of heavy grazing. Many western streams are all screwed up from grazing, placer mining, and headwaters logging, but most people don't recognize that; to them that's just the way things are. It's the same thing with most timbered mountainsides. The forests are all jacked up, but again, most people see pristine woods and think they're supposed to be that way. And as I mentioned earlier, even in those pristine woods, you're always coming across signs of historic mining. The amount of labor that went into metals exploration and extraction out here blows my mind. And after that, somebody clearcut the hill.


Makes sense. This small point is not really worth battling over. You obviously know things out your way better than I do and guess my assessment was overly positive. (Though you might possibly change your tune if you've been to where I'm from.) Unfortunately/apparently the disregard I've seen for the land is not unique to my region. As to why there seems to be less red tape, or more tolerance, for building trails in my parts... maybe I'll just not look that gift horse in the mouth.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Miker J said:


> Makes sense. This small point is not really worth battling over. You obviously know things out your way better than I do and guess my assessment was overly positive. (Though you might possibly change your tune if you've been to where I'm from.) Unfortunately/apparently the disregard I've seen for the land is not unique to my region. As to why there seems to be less red tape, or more tolerance, for building trails in my parts... maybe I'll just not look that gift horse in the mouth.


I hear you on mountaintop removal. It's incredibly F'ed up. amazing to see it from the air.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> ️️️️️️️️


Please tell me you see the irony in you loving that post so much.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> *Here is your argument. If I promote drug use on this forum, and you go kill yourself by taking drugs, I'm to blame for you killing yourself. That is your idea of a valid argument? It's nonsense. I've been told by people on these forums to go ride Highline Trail in Sedona. But then I crashed and got hurt, so they must be to blame. Nope, that isn't how it works. If rogue trail building accomplishes it's objective 95% of the time, you seem to believe that those few failures make all rogue building a waste of time and a threat to you personally. If you lost one trail, figure out how to get another better trail. You seem more than willing to throw fellow riders under the bus to get back in favor with your land manager. Figure it out. Your failures are not the fault of rogue trail building. *


You really think rogue trail building is the right answer everywhere, and where it leads to problems, that's just because it wasn't done correctly? That's an extreme position. I'd argue it's deeply flawed. And yes, if someone is building illegally in a jurisdiction where we have an agreement, I'd start by telling them to knock it off. If that didn't do it, I'll throw them under the bus without hesitation. When there is a go-ahead from the LM, there's no excuse for lone wolfing it. Want to have a say in the alignment, get involved. Have strong feelings about dig-to-ride? Get involved.

Taking the concept of responsibility for your own actions is great, but you're unwilling to recognize the fact that actions can impact others. Every couple weeks someone starts a thread complaining about a magazine ad or a video showing a rider roosting a turn, or complaining about "skid kiddies" and the underlying compliant is that it gives riders a bad reputation. For all the argument over what constitutes a skid versus a drift, the notion that blowing up corners on public trails is bad etiquette doesn't seem controversial. This shouldn't be any different.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

Switchblade2 said:


> Hack I once built a trail at the Whistler Bike Park. *It took me one day to get permission to build it *and about three weeks to build it.


Those Canadians get it. There are magnificent trail systems around most towns there that probably wouldn't have happened if they were stymied by bureaucracy.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Curveball said:


> Those Canadians get it. There are magnificent trail systems around most towns there that probably wouldn't have happened if they were stymied by bureaucracy.


It sounds like we have it a bit better up here, judging from some of the negative experiences people are sharing.

Parks Canada appears to have a more progressive view of mountain biking than its U.S. equivalent.

At many sanctioned trail networks, it's the mountain bikers that are building and maintaining trails with the landowner's permission. We aren't stuck waiting for the landowner to build us something.

Towns like St. Raymond (Vallee Bras Du Nord) and East Hereford in Quebec see the economic benefits of mountain biking and are providing land and funding trail development.

Despite all that, there are still loads of Canadians streaming over the border to go ride Sedona, Moab, Gooseberry, Kingdom Trails, Pisgah, etc.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Switchblade2 said:


> Trump is trying hard to give Canada better weather, but I doubt the skiers are going to like it.


I have Canadian friends who, upon learning that greenhouse gasses will warm the climate, now let their cars idle an extra ten minutes in the morning before work. Every little bit helps.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Switchblade2 said:


> The main reason why Canadians come to those areas you mentioned is the WEATHER.


Can't argue with that.

The riding and scenery are also pretty epic and amazing.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

ray.vermette said:


> Despite all that, there are still loads of Canadians streaming over the border to go ride Sedona, Moab, Gooseberry, Kingdom Trails, Pisgah, etc.


It never ceases to amaze me that Canadiens would bother traveling to ride Kingdom trails when the riding up in East Hereford, Bromont, and Montgomery center VT area are IMO so much better and closer to home.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

endo_alley said:


> i have canadian friends who, upon learning that greenhouse gasses will warm the climate, now let their cars idle an extra ten minutes in the morning before work. Every little bit helps.


ha!!!😂


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that Canadiens would bother traveling to ride Kingdom trails when the riding up in East Hereford, Bromont, and Montgomery center VT area are IMO so much better and closer to home.


It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but there is no denying that KT is a hit. It seems to be a trendy New-Englander thing to dump on KT, but for every rider that poo-poos the place, there are hundreds that love it. A chacun son gout.

I think Quebec is getting tired of seeing all those bikers stream across the border to go spend their dollars in KT, and seems to be investing in mtb trails and other tourist infrastructure to reverse the flow. Perhaps to the relief of KT residents, whom are probably getting a little weary of the Quebecer invasion every weekend.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Trendy to dump on KT? Sh1t I thought I was the only one. It is a hit and is fun, but compared to the quality and diversity of many other (free) places to ride where one can actually have a wilderness experience on the their bike and not hear the quebexican anthem, " TABERNAC!!! TWO RIDER SIDE BY EACH!!!" Down the trails, KT falls quite a bit short IMO.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

I will say that the place was a dream to ride in the mid-late 90's.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

ray.vermette said:


> It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but there is no denying that KT is a hit. It seems to be a trendy New-Englander thing to dump on KT, but for every rider that poo-poos the place, there are hundreds that love it. A chacun son gout.
> 
> I think Quebec is getting tired of seeing all those bikers stream across the border to go spend their dollars in KT, and seems to be investing in mtb trails and other tourist infrastructure to reverse the flow. Perhaps to the relief of KT residents, whom are probably getting a little weary of the Quebecer invasion every weekend.


Pretty sure I've posted this before, but after I've ridden the Neilsons at Shanahan, can't see myself ever going to KT again. IMO they are not even close to being in the same league.

I'd go more often but it is a huge pain getting through Montreal as I'm coming from south west of there. If you have any special route or hints pm me. Please.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman in Flagstaff you are in the process of putting an agenda together for upcoming RTCA meetings like we had in Sedona a couple years ago. It sure would be nice if the guy running the meetings would invite a representative from the local Tribal Nations to describe the concerns the tribe has when the USFS builds a new trail on Mt. Elden.
> 
> I would think the Tribal representatives could provide pictures and documents of situations that have occurred previously that upset their tribal leaders and the members of a particular tribe. It sure would add some credibility to the whole archeological issue when building new trails.
> 
> ...


Yes, the tribal liaison for the Coconino National Forest is attending the core group meetings. Any federal proposed action is required to consult tribal relations/governments.

They are mostly upset about reclaimed water being used at the ski area which to the tribal perspective is akin to pissing/shitting on a sacred mountain. There are not any trails they are concerned about now but I imagine when the ski area starts building mtn bike trails summer after next they might be a tad upset.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

I saw a real live Native American Indian the other day here in Maine. Almost dropped my groceries it was amazing👍


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Switchblade2 said:


> The more I think about the whole Antiquities thing is this is more about a WHITE MAN QUILT TRIP. I doubt the white man in charge of the RTCA meetings would ever invite Tribal Nation representatives to a meeting to discuss their concerns about mountain biking trails on the tribal lands the white guy took away from them.


A quilt trip huh? That's interesting. My Grandma and a couple of Aunts used to do that. I think it's weird personally.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

When visiting the Sedona Area a few years ago my wife and I went to a number of national Monuments. One of which, Tuzigoot, had some very interesting information.

Essentially the historians and archaeologists found that the natives had a habit of building homes in a way that after they moved on and migrated elsewhere they would naturally go back to nature and make it look like they never lived there.

So what did the USFS do? They dug it all up and put it back to how it might have looked when the natives actually lived there.....

Seemed really backwards and very against the intentions of the original inhabitants......

makes me think that at least some population of the natives would not really care if a trail was built over what used to be a home since the intent was that no one would eventually ever know it was a home in the first place.

Also makes me wonder if the natives are offended that the Government dug it up when they wanted it to disappear.....


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> Essentially the historians and archaeologists found that the natives had a habit of building homes in a way that after they moved on and migrated elsewhere they would naturally go back to nature and make it look like they never lived there.


Much like low impact rake n ride trails.



> So what did the USFS do? They dug it all up and put it back to how it might have looked when the natives actually lived there.....


Much like a majority of modern sanctioned trail building.



> Seemed really backwards and very against the intentions of the original inhabitants......


Yes, the original rogue trail builders that put MTB on the map would be turning in their graves.

🙂


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Any proposed trails get vetted by two pueblos and a tribe where I build. I think the trails are valued by the natives as much as anyone else, in fact all of them are beginning to develop their own trail systems and infrastructure. Trailbuilding is the one venture that everyone is excited about. Our YCC trail crews are mostly native, and they take a LOt of pride in what they build. As to Switchblade2 and Klurejr, you don't know what you are talking about, get over yourselves. Utter bullshit... anger and ignorance facing off.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

bsieb said:


> I think the trails are valued by the natives as much as anyone else, in fact all of them are beginning to develop their own trail systems and infrastructure. Trailbuilding is the one venture that everyone is excited about.


^ This. Indigenous people also mountain bike, appreciate nature and want to preserve it. We are better off engaging them and getting them involved in the process, than considering them an inconvenient bureaucratic hurdle.

First Nation teens find jobs, adrenaline-pumping fun on Yukon mountain bike trail - North - CBC News


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> Klu of course they are offended. The White Man took their land and now they are pretending to care about user created trails being built on their ancestral land.
> 
> If there were no Archeological studies due to a law change they would concentrate on education, healthcare and getting their land back.


You really need to step back an evaluate what a tiny insignificant being you really are. Signed an indigenous human being.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

ray.vermette said:


> ^ This. Indigenous people also mountain bike, appreciate nature and want to preserve it. We are better off engaging them and getting them involved in the process, than considering them an inconvenient bureaucratic hurdle.
> 
> First Nation teens find jobs, adrenaline-pumping fun on Yukon mountain bike trail - North - CBC News


Wow, I've have been through Carcross, who'd a thunk!  And yes, boredom and hopelessness are the real problems Natives deal with. Outdoor recreation is a breath of fresh air that tends to broaden horizons. Mountain bikers are perhaps the best of the whole outdoor rec lot, in my experience.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

bsieb said:


> As to Klurejr, you don't know what you are talking about, get over yourselves. Utter bullshit... anger and ignorance facing off.


I am sorry, What exactly did I saw that you disagree with? Have you been to Tuzigoot? I read that info directly off the USFS placard on my visit. Are you saying the natives are happy that the USFS took what was designed to go back to nature and instead have built it back up and preserved it? I honestly do not know how they feel about it. I was asking a general question.

If I built something with a an intention for it to crumble back to nature, and others came behind me and changed preserved it, I would probably not be happy with that. Would you? Are the native american's happy about the restoration of places like Tuzigoot that were designed to disappear back to nature? I honestly do not know, I have not spoken to someone who descended from the Tribes that Built Tuzigoot.

From visiting all the monuments in that area I started to get the feeling that the native american's did not revere old homes one bit, they were a nomadic people of sorts, built places to lived, stayed for a time (20-50 years, sometimes more) and then packed up and abandoned the location. With such a lifestyle that does not promote keeping roots in one specific area, why would they be sensitive about the "trash" that was left behind that is now treated as an archaeological treasure by some?

I really do not see how a group such as this would care if a trail was built on an old home that was designed to go back to nature and not to stand as a testament to something. I could be wrong, perhaps the Native American's intentions for places like Tuzigoot are not actually what the USFS says they are...

Also, I have no anger, not sure why you are implying that. Calling me ignorant is a personal attack, keep it up and you will get banned for personal attacks.

Dispute my points, do not attack other users.


----------



## raisingarizona (Feb 3, 2009)

There sure is a lot generalization in this thread whether it's race, trail building techniques and now different branches of outdoor recreation groups.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rock I am curious if the Tribal Liaison for the Coconino Nationael Forest is really engaged in the proposed federal action. Has he been invited to the RTCA process to discuss his concerns about new USFS proposed multi-use trails and the user created ones that were bootlegged in over the last twenty years. I will bet he could care less about trails and is more interested in the archaeologists who dug up his ancestors
> 
> I went out to the Tequilla Sunrise trail and couldn't find any Metates, but I did find the one on the Anthill/Grand Central downhill. If any indigenous Native Americans want to claim it I know where it's currently located.


Well, I guess there's no need to educate your or Mr. Hacksaw about the importance of protecting archeological resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

The high school my daughter attends is 50% Hispanic, Navajo, and Hopis. She appears to be growing up with a greater appreciation of the people that inhabited the region than older generations. For that I am thankful.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

We can type "hell" here now?🤔


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Klurejr said:


> I am sorry, What exactly did I saw that you disagree with? Have you been to Tuzigoot? I read that info directly off the USFS placard on my visit. Are you saying the natives are happy that the USFS took what was designed to go back to nature and instead have built it back up and preserved it? I honestly do not know how they feel about it. I was asking a general question.
> 
> If I built something with a an intention for it to crumble back to nature, and others came behind me and changed preserved it, I would probably not be happy with that. Would you? Are the native american's happy about the restoration of places like Tuzigoot that were designed to disappear back to nature? I honestly do not know, I have not spoken to someone who descended from the Tribes that Built Tuzigoot.
> 
> ...


I recommend the book "House Of Rain" by Craig Childs, if you are interested. The Hutsatsanon (?) abandoned sites and then returned, over and over, over a very large area of the SW USA and Northern Mexico, depending on climate, and other factors, for a long time. Your points aren't very coherent, but in any case, may or not be true depending who you are talking to. All natives don't feel the same way about where trails should be permitted, for instance.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Switchblade2 said:


> bsieb can you tell us were you get your information about what natives feel about trails being permitted? I thought we came to the conclusion that Tribal Nations don't care about mountain biking trails, and that it's the governing landmanager who desides if they can ignor the Antiquities Act and do a very basic archeology report that says DON'T WORRY TRIBAL NATIONS EVERYTHING IS OK.


I have worked closely with a number of native entities, and a large number of native people, on a variety of trail projects, on a variety of managed lands, for the last fifteen years. I get my info first hand.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

come now people..... the racists and overly political posts cannot be happening. Stay on topic. I deleted the posts that had the offensive content as well as any posts quoting it. No more.

Switchblade - please consider just how offensive your comments can be before pressing the submit button.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

bsieb said:


> I recommend the book "House Of Rain" by Craig Childs, if you are interested. The Hutsatsanon (?) abandoned sites and then returned, over and over, over a very large area of the SW USA and Northern Mexico, depending on climate, and other factors, for a long time. Your points aren't very coherent, but in any case, may or not be true depending who you are talking to. All natives don't feel the same way about where trails should be permitted, for instance.


Still not sure how my points are not coherent. I make a practice of re-reading my entire posts before I submit them.

Anyway, I certainly can concede that what I saw at Tuzigoot and other sites is not by any means what all tribes did, and I am sure some area's hold more significance than others for those tribes.

Have you been to Tuzigoot?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Klurejr said:


> come now people..... the racists and overly political posts cannot be happening. Stay on topic. I deleted the posts that had the offensive content as well as any posts quoting it. No more.
> 
> Switchblade - please consider just how offensive your comments can be before pressing the submit button.


If what he said isn't a ban-able offense, I'm really not understanding what is.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Switchblade2 said:


> bsieb can you share with us the names of those entities and the names and locations of some of the trails you worked on that those Native Americans had feelings about where the trails were being routed.
> 
> Can you be specific about what the Antiquities were on those trails and what the Native Americans were CONCERNED ABOUT?


The Pueblo of Zuni, The Pueblo of Acoma, and the Navajo Nation. None of them are worried about much other than retaining ancestral rights to hunt and gather wood and plants, on the ground, where trails are being built. All these entities have their own lands that they administrate as they see fit. Most concerns on the ground are about avoiding lightning struck trees, old sweat lodges, and such, and are solved by simple rerouting.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

bsieb said:


> ...avoiding lightning struck trees.....


? Just curious what that's about. I know we're getting off topic again. Sorry.

I Googled and found some references to bad luck. Does it bring bad luck to the trail, or the builders, or the users, or the people in the area? Genuinely curious. Thanks.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Boris Badenov said:


> *Here is your argument. If I promote drug use on this forum, and you go kill yourself by taking drugs, I'm to blame for you killing yourself. That is your idea of a valid argument? It's nonsense. I've been told by people on these forums to go ride Highline Trail in Sedona. But then I crashed and got hurt, so they must be to blame. Nope, that isn't how it works. If rogue trail building accomplishes it's objective 95% of the time, you seem to believe that those few failures make all rogue building a waste of time and a threat to you personally. If you lost one trail, figure out how to get another better trail. You seem more than willing to throw fellow riders under the bus to get back in favor with your land manager. Figure it out. Your failures are not the fault of rogue trail building. *


Nope, not my argument. I'm not saying blame can be squarely placed, however I'm saying that a responsible person wouldn't post such things (promoting illegal activities... I don't know what your Highline trail nonsense is about other than proving you don't get what I'm saying).

As for allowing you to get involved in my local scene, no thanks; we've got enough loud mouths involved already.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Ok, I totally understand your point of view and can respect it. I would never want my posts to cause you or anyone issues in your area or theirs.
> 
> Even tho it seems as tho rogue trail was "ok" in many or maybe even most areas outside of New England before IMBA and other advocacy groups became a thing, I see that that has changed, not out here so much, but definitely out there.
> 
> It's unfortunate but not unexpected to hear about an uptick in "in your face" rogue trail building in some areas where advocacy groups have pushed to have legal sanctioned trail building approved which attracts MANY more riders thru marketing, social media, and STRAVA. Areas that were low profile and quiet before are becoming louder and complicated in some cases.


Whoa, honestly didn't expect such a reasonable and well stated response. Thanks. Now you see my point, and believe me I've seen yours the whole time. I ride some great rogue trails... But they are old and the land manager is willing to let them be water under the bridge. The line has been drawn in the sand, for better or worse.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

bsieb said:


> I have worked closely with a number of native entities, and a large number of native people, on a variety of trail projects, on a variety of managed lands, for the last fifteen years. I get my info first hand.


What a novel idea, talking to other people to get their perspectives on issues that are important to you. If only more people would take this approach.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

rockman said:


> The high school my daughter attends is 50% Hispanic, Navajo, and Hopis. She appears to be growing up with a greater appreciation of the people that inhabited the region than older generations. For that I am thankful.


Good for her. I wish I would have had that experience growing up.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

ray.vermette said:


> ^ This. Indigenous people also mountain bike, appreciate nature and want to preserve it. We are better off engaging them and getting them involved in the process, than considering them an inconvenient bureaucratic hurdle.
> 
> First Nation teens find jobs, adrenaline-pumping fun on Yukon mountain bike trail - North - CBC News


I read about that in Freehub magazine. What a great thing that's going on up there.

I'd love to visit the area and either go for a ride or do trailwork with the First Nations members.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

ray.vermette said:


> ? Just curious what that's about. I know we're getting off topic again. Sorry.
> 
> I Googled and found some references to bad luck. Does it bring bad luck to the trail, or the builders, or the users, or the people in the area? Genuinely curious. Thanks.


It's a Navajo taboo, not sure of the origin or purpose, but that's the way it is, so we comply. It helps to have sensitive and knowledgeable natives on board, keeping an eye out for sensitive details, and we have that. Makes things flow better.

edit: Now that I think of it, our district ranger and rec officer are both Navajo. Can't imagine better leadership.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Back on topic. There certainly have been some consequences from unauthorized trail building in the San Diego region. Note this post from SDMBA:

https://sdmba.com/building_unauthorized_trails_j.php


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

In New England, I'd say well north of 90 percent of legal trail was build illegally. Many areas reject formalization so they can continue development in this way right up to present day. 

If the trail guy makes good choices on route and who's land they create on, there's a good chance they will last a long time with no issues and in many many cases, even locally for me, eventually become part of the advertised system, which ultimately kills and homogenizes them. 

Figuring out how to protect the trails from the last phase has been the trick. Grumpy local vibe helps a lot.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^Yep, keep them in the hands of the builder/users as long as possible. Things like strava heat are kind of a bummer in that respect. Educating users helps, many have quit using strava for that reason. Don't let the man track your secret stash if you want to keep it. :/


----------



## dirtyBob (Jun 1, 2005)

Skelldify said:


> People will keep building rogue trails until there are sanctioned trails built that are challenging. For now, building rogue seems to be the only way to make it happen.


^^^ This! And it is now clear to me why trail advocacy has gotten nowhere in my area and rogue building flourishes out of necessity. 1: we don't have a seat at the table, and 2: I live 15 minutes from Mike V! Haha!


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

bsieb said:


> ^Yep, keep them in the hands of the builder/users as long as possible. Things like strava heat are kind of a bummer in that respect. Educating users helps, many have quit using strava for that reason. Don't let the man track your secret stash if you want to keep it. :/


I don't really keep secrets. There is a big difference between marketed trails vs local trails. There's a large group of people who ride in Vt that want easy climbing and DH. Gnarly climbs and technical trail is a filter. No Kiosk and a reputation of grumpy locals and sharp slate are as well. Despite the fact that VMBA included us on their state wide map that they sell (VMBA had no part in this development and intentionally avoided local outreach before mapping us and selling the maps), most folks who find riding in that way find our riding too hard to climb, too hard to navigate, and too hard to ride.

In Vt, non-profit organizations from every recreational niche are partnering with the Vermont Department of Marketing and Tourism to include local recreational resources as part of the product offered to tourists, but they all have to be dumbed down. In the MTB sector, VMBA has been responsible for creating *some*, but very very few trails that are part of the state-wide network advertised. They have a price point for membership that essentially amounts to a token, and the funds needed to keep up with the increased impact have never materialized. Any new project they have undertaken has been targeted at the visitor experience, and growing MTB tourism. Therefore, excavator built, 100 percent ride-able for all, dirt sidewalks. At the same time we are loosing our technical, primitive single tracks as "Improvements" are underfunded, and the workers (me for a while) are forced to just dumb down, or straight remove or reroute difficult trail sections on our oldest and most loved trail networks.

The self appointed experts have used graduate student interns to produce economic impact studies of questionable content to sell the state on this model and the locals, at this point, have very little control of what get's done to their local scene. This disconnect between a handful of sell-outs and the state and local land managers has recently resulted in a rejection of the over engineered and over advertised bologna they are calling MTB trails, and spurred rogue and volunteer driven building away from these over-saturated pods of trail. 
This new establishment has become so removed from the roots of what MTB is in the Northeast, the hobby has almost split into two separate genres. The ski comparison is a pretty accurate one. What used to be MTBing, now could be called "Back Country" while there is a whole new demographic of "Resort", or "Park", or "groomer" riders. 
I have seen some machine built stuff work. Fortunately for me the best one is the one we built in my town. The Boss on the job was open to input from me, and I urged him to under build, keep the natural undulations and irregular shapes of the land wherever possible, and even add manufactured tech that functions as armor. We also worked hard to provide a line that has multiple options on one track for the vastly different speeds riders of different abilities were carrying. It worked really well for this project as part of a rec. center for a well funded small university. The cost of such work was high, and would never fly for a project on public land.

If the greater official MTB world never developed for maximum tourist $, and built what the locals wanted to ride, they wouldn't lost their volunteer base in Vt and paid crews would never have happened here. Instead those folks went off into the bushes to continue their work, illegal, technical, real, never for money, always for love.

So the unsanctioned building, responsible for almost all legal trail in Vt continues. It's this type of trail that grew the local passion for the sport. It's these projects that continue to hold down the true nature of trail riding in New England. All this other crap is generic garbage that lacks in so many ways, except in the level of impact it has. So much damage done that primitive trails would never come close to creating, even in their worst condition, and yet sustainability is given as the reason to build in this manner. It's such a load poop.....and it stinks.


----------



## Curveball (Aug 10, 2015)

We recently had some rogue trails brought into the legal system. The rogue trails were in steep forest and quite technical with jumps, drops, steeps, etc.

When they were brought into the system, "improvements" were made. These "improvements" consisted of the construction of a new climbing trail, cutting back the brush, and ummm, well, I guess that's about it. The trails still have their rugged character and are heaps of fun.

I really can't say enough good things about the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

DaveVt said:


> I don't really keep secrets. There is a big difference between marketed trails vs local trails. There's a large group of people who ride in Vt that want easy climbing and DH. Gnarly climbs and technical trail is a filter. No Kiosk and a reputation of grumpy locals and sharp slate are as well. Despite the fact that VMBA included us on their state wide map that they sell (VMBA had no part in this development and intentionally avoided local outreach before mapping us and selling the maps), most folks who find riding in that way find our riding too hard to climb, too hard to navigate, and too hard to ride.
> 
> In Vt, non-profit organizations from every recreational niche are partnering with the Vermont Department of Marketing and Tourism to include local recreational resources as part of the product offered to tourists, but they all have to be dumbed down. In the MTB sector, VMBA has been responsible for creating *some*, but very very few trails that are part of the state-wide network advertised. They have a price point for membership that essentially amounts to a token, and the funds needed to keep up with the increased impact have never materialized. Any new project they have undertaken has been targeted at the visitor experience, and growing MTB tourism. Therefore, excavator built, 100 percent ride-able for all, dirt sidewalks. At the same time we are loosing our technical, primitive single tracks as "Improvements" are underfunded, and the workers (me for a while) are forced to just dumb down, or straight remove or reroute difficult trail sections on our oldest and most loved trail networks.
> 
> ...


??????


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

http://fox59.com/2018/02/14/two-men...legal-bike-trail-at-fort-harrison-state-park/

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Silentfoe said:


> Two men charged for allegedly creating illegal bike trail at Fort Harrison State Park | FOX59
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


What a couple of tools, I hope they have to make the preserve whole no matter the cost.


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Switchblade2 said:


> When you look at the FB page of the terrain it doesn't look too hard to build a trail at that State Park. It looks like something Hacksaw could route in a day or two. It would be interesting to see a video or pictures of the environmental destruction.


Totally missed the point.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Wow. Just wow. Epic fail.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Switchblade2 said:


> Hacksaw my point is that the terrain I am seeing on the FB page is rake and ride. I thought you were the master at such trails. Do you ever think that your trails are environmental disasters? If you read the response from the Park Rangers they are trying to make us think the restoration to bring the trail back to its original condition is going to be a massive undertaking. You and I know if you let Mother Nature do the restoration it would be pretty simple.


My epic fail comment was directed towards the guys that got busted.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Hacksaw my point is that the terrain I am seeing on the FB page is rake and ride. I thought you were the master at such trails. Do you ever think that your trails are environmental disasters? If you read the response from the Park Rangers they are trying to make us think the restoration to bring the trail back to its original condition is going to be a massive undertaking. You and I know if you let Mother Nature do the restoration it would be pretty simple.


Depending on what they sprayed with, what plants, lichens, etc. are in the area it very well could take that by the time it is contracted out. Could honestly be looking at soil removal and replacement to remove the chemicals if the right mix of flora and chemicals are present.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Switchblade2 said:


> Tuck are you being sarcastic? Let's see some picture or a video of this heinous act. We need some evidence.


What the hell are you on?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Message to all the budding illegal trail builders out there. Don't build illegally on public land. Don't use chemicals or poison. Don't talk about it on FB if you do. Research who owns what and make some educated guesses on existing uses and the tolerance for such uses. If 4 wheelers and dirt bikes are present without conflict, and the land is not posted, scratching in a good old primitive trail is likely a go. Minimal clearing of leaves at the intersections is also suggested. Leave it discrete until it's been ridden for a season or two. At that point it will be difficult to tell how old that trail is and when people ask if you made it you can reply, "I've worked on that trail......but it's been there for years." If I were to create any illicit routes, that'd be my plan.....if I still did that type of thing.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^I wonder if anything came of those charges, probably not. 

A 100 ACre wildlife preserve?

Might as well make it a bike park now, which is more likely to happen, ime.

Yay bikes!


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

Switchblade2 said:


> Silent i am just trying to find out if this was a Sh!thole trail or a user created masterpiece. I get the fact that the trail was built without permission and these guys should be hung or spend the rest of their life in prison. I just want to see what the actual environmental damage was.
> 
> I am assuming that if these guys are using a herbicide it was to control vegetation growth. If it was glyophostate it would only last one season which I assume was done last spring or summer during the growth period. So if the trail is just covered with leaves and other vegetation it would be back to normal in a year or so.
> 
> ...


 They used herbicide/weedkiller in a nature preserve. And put up stuff in public posts. Yikes. Just no.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

leeboh said:


> They used herbicide/weedkiller in a nature preserve. And put up stuff in public posts. Yikes. Just no.


Exactly, from a conservation standpoint the preserve part of this is key. To keep with the place's mission, arguments of should it be or not aside, there is a lot of work that must be done.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

leeboh said:


> They used herbicide/weedkiller in a nature preserve. And put up stuff in public posts. Yikes. Just no.


One preserve I ride in a lot is the premier destination in North America for mountain bikers during winter months, yet I've been out in the middle of it and had a bow hunter walk across the trail in front of me. It was all legal.

On the other hand, the other large preserve I ride in is managed in such a way that when you move sand 18" to one side in dry washes, to allow bikers to ride through them, they will tell you their compliance staff has discovered a federal law prohibiting the rerouting of water sources, and that moving sand is strictly forbidden.

I've also been present when the first shovel put into the ground on a trail project, pulled up some dark soil and signs that fire had been present at that location sometime in the past. The over zealous park staff stopped all work for two weeks as archeologists studied the burned remains of wood, gps'ed the location, photographed and cataloged the site, and perhaps said a prayer to the fire Gods.

I've met preserve staff that are complete kooks and others who understand their mission is to provide a great trail user experience for the public. One will look at a rusty can of beans on the side of the trail and make a big deal of it being a archeological site, and the other will kick that can of beans under a bush, or pack it out as trash. It's a crap shoot. Some people know how to solve problems and others tend to create problems out of thin air.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Here's another article that has a video of some of the damage. Now this just shows a small portion of trail, but that section will disappear under leaf litter by next fall. and one will be hard pressed to find the trail there. Apparently this area is totally closed to all public access, so perhaps there is something like an endangered plant or animal there, but no information was given in that regard. Also no mention of herbicide use. I'm certainly not supporting the builders here, as it seems pretty stupid to go into a relatively small, 100 acre preserve that is closed to all public use and not only build trail, but use herbicides. But it seems the 'irreversible damage" is pretty strong language. In that climate, nature will take over quickly. Now, in a drier climate like, say, Arizona, environmental damage can take much longer to heal.

Illegal trail causes irreversible damage to state park, 'shocks' investigators, park officials, bike group | WISH-TV


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

bpressnall said:


> Here's another article that has a video of some of the damage. Now this just shows a small portion of trail, but that section will disappear under leaf litter by next fall. and one will be hard pressed to find the trail there. Apparently this area is totally closed to all public access, so perhaps there is something like an endangered plant or animal there, but no information was given in that regard. Also no mention of herbicide use. I'm certainly not supporting the builders here, as it seems pretty stupid to go into a relatively small, 100 acre preserve that is closed to all public use and not only build trail, but use herbicides. But it seems the 'irreversible damage" is pretty strong language. In that climate, nature will take over quickly. Now, in a drier climate like, say, Arizona, environmental damage can take much longer to heal.
> 
> Illegal trail causes irreversible damage to state park, 'shocks' investigators, park officials, bike group | WISH-TV


sure, the "irreversible damage" statement is a bit strong, but it's not entirely incorrect. While leaf litter will cover things over in a season, that's not the whole of it. It will probably still take decades for all vegetation to obscure the cleared trail corridor, and that is likely what the officials were talking about


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

bpressnall said:


> Here's another article that has a video of some of the damage. Now this just shows a small portion of trail, but that section will disappear under leaf litter by next fall. and one will be hard pressed to find the trail there. Apparently this area is totally closed to all public access, so perhaps there is something like an endangered plant or animal there, but no information was given in that regard. Also no mention of herbicide use. I'm certainly not supporting the builders here, as it seems pretty stupid to go into a relatively small, 100 acre preserve that is closed to all public use and not only build trail, but use herbicides. But it seems the 'irreversible damage" is pretty strong language. In that climate, nature will take over quickly. Now, in a drier climate like, say, Arizona, environmental damage can take much longer to heal.
> 
> Illegal trail causes irreversible damage to state park, 'shocks' investigators, park officials, bike group | WISH-TV


That video is hilarious. The especially loved the way the woman reporter closed it out by saying it is unclear whether other bikers who used the trail will be tracked down and charged as well.

If this is what passes as serious crime in Lawrence, Indiana, they should all be on their knees giving thanks. This preserve area is less than 1000 feet from interstate 465. They describe the trail work as shocking. They basically raked leaves off to create a path. Then they stated it was $50,000 worth of trail damage. Really? By fall the leaves will have covered it up entirely.

It's just so funny looking at their mug shots and then reading about the actual State Park trails they built and then paved with asphalt. You poured an asphalt trail in a preserve and you are upset about a 12" wide path through cleared leaves? They even let someone come into their Park and build a golf course, restaurant, and conference facility. How did that enhance the preserve?

Up to 2 years in prison for using a shovel in the commission of trail building.

Let's start a petition to free the Fort Harrison bikers. Or maybe if they get sentenced to 1000 hours of community service, I could get them to build more trails in my local preserve.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harold said:


> sure, the "irreversible damage" statement is a bit strong, but it's not entirely incorrect. While leaf litter will cover things over in a season, that's not the whole of it. It will probably still take decades for all vegetation to obscure the cleared trail corridor, and that is likely what the officials were talking about


I dunno. Looks similar to our woods and I know if we abandonded a trail like that, you'd have a really, really tough time finding it the next year even, if you know exactly where it was. Not saying those guys should've done what they done, but it seems to me people are really blowing it out of proportion as far as 'damage' goes. The chemical spraying is pretty wacky though.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

bsieb said:


> A 100 ACre wildlife preserve?


Not sure what you're commenting on. Do you think this is really small or really big?

The articles (and the name of the place) all say it contains a rookery. Which might be very small and very important. That's certainly an issue which worries me about trails ('legal' or 'illegal'), they can disturb important things. Which is why in some places there's years and reams of paperwork to do anything. Though frankly I think those often kill more trees for the paper than they preserve important places and things on the site.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> I dunno. Looks similar to our woods and I know if we abandonded a trail like that, you'd have a really, really tough time finding it the next year even, if you know exactly where it was. Not saying those guys should've done what they done, but it seems to me people are really blowing it out of proportion as far as 'damage' goes. The chemical spraying is pretty wacky though.


Mostly playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's worth noting that 'tough to find' and ecologically restored may not be the same thing, or even related really. Often killing off one type of vegetation allows others to grow disproportionate to the natural state; so just because _something_ grew back doesn't mean it's restored. Also mosses, lichens and the like take a long time to be restored and are an important part of the ecosystem. Just because you say 'it grew back' does not mean an ecologist would say so.

I think the main reason for the hyped reaction is the chemicals, though. Setting a precedent for spraying chemicals in State Parks, much less a nature preserve, would be terrible. These guys may not have done anything too crazy, and the authorities may acknowledge that, but they need to send a message that it will not be tolerated. Hate to say it, but if you're dumb enough to be in a position to be made an example of (like posting for 535 other people to see that you sprayed chemicals on an illegal trail in a nature preserve) then you can't really complain.

$10 says these guys are members here.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Switchblade2 said:


> As far as Arizona goes *I have heard 1,000,000,000 acres* is in the process of being environmentally destroyed in four different National Forests by a bunch of humans. After the terrible destruction is finished very few tress and animals will be left and Mother Nature will have her work cut out to bring the environment back to a so called normal condition.


That's an order of magnitude more acres than are in Arizona, so the source may not be reliable.


----------



## Wildfire (Feb 4, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> As far as Arizona goes I have heard 1,000,000,000 acres is in the process of being environmentally destroyed in four different National Forests by a bunch of humans. After the terrible destruction is finished very few tress and animals will be left and Mother Nature will have her work cut out to bring the environment back to a so called normal condition.


A billion acres? That's quite a feat considering that Arizona only has a total of less than 73 million acres of land in the entire state. Could you kindly provide a quality video or photos of this wide-spread destruction to back up your assertion?


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

Wildfire said:


> A billion acres? That's quite a feat considering that Arizona only has a total of less than 73 million acres of land in the entire state. Could you kindly provide a quality video or photos of this wide-spread destruction to back up your assertion?


I'm dying here.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Keep in mind that this case is in the legal system. The information that is out is only what was in the probable cause statement. Both side likely have much more information, but strategically neither side may want to make more public knowledge. 

It is not very productive to try and draw conclusions at this point. And this thread will likely be long forgotten by the time it plays out.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

TheDwayyo said:


> I think the main reason for the hyped reaction is the chemicals, though. Setting a precedent for spraying chemicals in State Parks, much less a nature preserve, would be terrible.
> 
> These guys may not have done anything too crazy, and the authorities may acknowledge that, but they need to send a message that it will not be tolerated. Hate to say it, but if you're dumb enough to be in a position to be made an example of (like posting for 535 other people to see that you sprayed chemicals on an illegal trail in a nature preserve) then you can't really complain.


I worked for a conservation corps for ten years. I worked at the Grand Canyon, in revegetation, at their nursery, for several years. We used all sorts of chemicals to kill bull thistle plants. On another project, we wore protective suits when we traveled down the Colorado River and sprayed invasive plants along the shores. It seemed nuts to be spraying poisons on plants that close to a water source. But that is what they paid us to do.

I'm guessing those two ran into some poison oak and decided to spray it before proceeding with their trail.

Look at the map of the State Park. There is a golf course inside of it, right next to the nature preserve. I guarantee they are spraying all sorts of chemicals on plants.

Hopefully the judge is more reasonable than some of the spokespeople.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Boris Badenov said:


> Hopefully the judge is more reasonable than some of the spokespeople.


Bullsh*t, level the highest possible penalties against these two morons. It boggles the mind that some are defending the actions of these two cretins and speaks volumes of the character of those that choose to defend them.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

life behind bars said:


> It boggles the mind that some are defending the actions of these two cretins


This^^^^^^^^

1) they illegally built trail on POSTED land.

2) they used SHOVELS and TOOLS. Not just rake and ride. High impact building here.

3) they used chemicals.

4) they blabbed about it on a Facebook page that they created for this illegal activity.

5) epic fail on so many levels.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Switchblade2 said:


> It will be interesting how this turns out. I hope they get off with a warning and some community service.


Agreed.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> It will be interesting how this turns out. I hope they get off with a warning and some community service.


No, they need to be made an example of. First, a nature preserve closed to all traffic is a dumb place to build illegal trail. Second, they went beyond the bare minimum. Third, were moronic enough to put it on social media. Finally, it is instances like this that are used as ammunition against bikers everywhere there is a contentious relationship. Come down on them hard, publicize it and hopefully it will not happen elsewhere.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Silentfoe (May 9, 2008)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, they need to be made an example of. First, a nature preserve closed to all traffic is a dumb place to build illegal trail. Second, they went beyond the bare minimum. Third, were moronic enough to put it on social media. Finally, it is instances like this that are used as ammunition against bikers everywhere there is a contentious relationship. Come down on them hard, publicize it and hopefully it will not happen elsewhere.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


This

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

life behind bars said:


> Bullsh*t, level the highest possible penalties against these two morons. It boggles the mind that some are defending the actions of these two cretins and speaks volumes of the character of those that choose to defend them.


Lighten up, Francis.

Fort Harrison State Park was a military base up until 1996. Lots of roads and buildings and vehicles. They clear-cut a huge swath of forest in order to create an 18 hole golf course in the park, along with restaurants and a conference center. They even built a dog park in the preserve, that is inside the park. Since it rains a lot there, they decided to pave some of the mountain bike trails with asphalt. Sounds like a blast for riders in their 90's.

These two are idiots, but they don't deserve 2 years in state prison. They probably used a shovel to fill in erosion ruts and then used a hand pruner to trim some brush. There is your shovel and "tools" description made by the law dog in the interview.

I was just on Trail Links and searched for the top bike trails near Lawrence, Indiana. There were 20 listed and all of them were paved in asphalt, concrete, or crushed rock.

I once turned down a job offer for my wife and I to be on the IMBA Trail Care Crew, after a previous couple serving in that position told me it sucked being in places like Lawrence, Indiana, where local mountain bikers had few opportunities to ride quality trails, or any trails. They often end up riding along a perimeter fence line of a farm or some some swampy wetland area. Or on paved trails, because that is their idea of sustainable trails.

These two dopes should have pooled their resources together and moved out west. They wouldn't need to build a thing, just ride all day. Maybe paying a fine will motivate them to quit their jobs at the local meat-packing plant, or whatever, and move to where we have lots of public land covered with challenging mountain bike trails.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

*Mountain biking in The People's Republic Of Indiana*

*OFF-ROAD CYCLING PERMITS*

What is the cost?
The cost of the annual ORC Permit is $20. A daily ORC may be purchased for $5.

What is the Off-Road Cycling (ORC) Permit?
The Off-Road Cycling permit is required for cyclists wishing to access and use mountain bike trails on state park, reservoir and state forest properties with trail ratings above beginner. Each rider must possess and be able to produce the permit while engaged in off-road cycling activities. It is not required for property roadways and paved biking trails.

Are all bike riders required to have an ORC permit?
Only off-road cyclists riding designated mountain bike trails that are rated as above beginner level will be required to possess an annual or daily permit. Cycling on property roadways, riding on paved bicycle paths and in other authorized riding areas will not require a permit.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> Just think how much of the environment isn't back to normal in Texas, Floridah, and Puerto Rico! I bet you it's at least BILLION time greater. Now there is some significant damage.


Wow, what a wonderful argument. There are also planets that collide with each other and cease to exist, supernovas consuming galaxies, black holes swallowing everything in their path including light, etc ad nauseum. So why should we care about preserving our environment at all?



Boris Badenov said:


> These two are idiots, but they don't deserve 2 years in state prison.


Agreed. I'm fine with 'making an example of them' but in my mind that just means some hefty fines and a year or so worth of community service helping in that preserve. Jail time is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Boris Badenov said:


> *Mountain biking in The People's Republic Of Indiana*
> 
> *OFF-ROAD CYCLING PERMITS*
> 
> ...


Wow Indiana ties with Vermont as the two weirdest states in the nation.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, they need to be made an example of.


Firing squad? Tar and feathers?

Having ones mug shot in the news with a good bit of community service should send a pretty effective message imo.


----------



## CycleKrieg (Dec 19, 2013)

Boris Badenov - Are you from Indiana? Do you know anything about it?

I only ask because your descriptions of mountain biking in Indiana are bit off. Don't get me wrong, I won't defend Indiana in most things, I grew up there, but its not the mountain biking armpit you describe. Its no Minnesota (where I live now) but its at or above its neighbors to the east and west as far as good mountain biking.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Firing squad? Tar and feathers?
> 
> Having ones mug shot in the news with a good bit of community service should send a pretty effective message imo.


Strawman? Hyperbole?

No, you just don't want the precedent set because you're going to continue doing things that jeopardize others access. People like you who get on forums and condone rogue trail building and argue that it is harmless are part of the problem. They are part of what gives people like this the idea and "bravery" to do so. This will significantly harm new trail efforts in that area, perhaps to the point of effectively stopping it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

TheDwayyo said:


> I'm fine with 'making an example of them' but in my mind that just means some hefty fines and a year or so worth of community service helping in that preserve. Jail time is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.


Hufhand lists his income between $200-$250k per year. He should be able to pay the fines and restore the area to it's former natural state. We all know that great blue herons don't like single track.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Switchblade2 said:


> Mother Nature is the biggest enemy to the environment........


lol


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Good news folks! Just read another article about that illegal trail building in Indiana. The judge that presided over this case wasn't sure what the penalty should be, so he read this thread to gain some insight. The judge reported, "This was the first time I have presided over a case of illegal trail building, and frankly, I just wasn't sure how to proceed. Luckily I was able to gain insight from some true experts on this subject through the MTBR website. I have decided to commit these criminals to two years in state prison. In order to make room in the prison, we will be releasing two MS 13 gang members back to the closest sanctuary city."


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

bpressnall said:


> Good news folks! Just read another article about that illegal trail building in Indiana. The judge that presided over this case wasn't sure what the penalty should be, so he read this thread to gain some insight. The judge reported, "This was the first time I have presided over a case of illegal trail building, and frankly, I just wasn't sure how to proceed. Luckily I was able to gain insight from some true experts on this subject through the MTBR website. I have decided to commit these criminals to two years in state prison. In order to make room in the prison, we will be releasing two MS 13 gang members back to the closest sanctuary city."


🤣🤣🤣


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Strawman? Hyperbole?
> 
> No, you just don't want the precedent set because you're going to continue doing things that jeopardize others access. People like you who get on forums and condone rogue trail building and argue that it is harmless are part of the problem. They are part of what gives people like this the idea and "bravery" to do so. This will significantly harm new trail efforts in that area, perhaps to the point of effectively stopping it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


News flash, this isn't about me. Please try to stay on topic.

What's your idea of "coming down hard" on these guys?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> News flash, this isn't about me. Please try to stay on topic.
> 
> What's your idea of "coming down hard" on these guys?


But it is about you. If you are too dense to see that see that I don't know what to tell you. Your actions made public and continued championing of these activities lend credibility in the minds of people going to do what these people did. It's the same reason quite a few car forums ban any discussion of street racing. I, for one, wish MTBR would take the same stance on illegal trail building and poaching.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> But it is about you. If you are too dense to see that see that I don't know what to tell you. Your actions made public and continued championing of these activities lend credibility in the minds of people going to do what these people did. It's the same reason quite a few car forums ban any discussion of street racing. I, for one, wish MTBR would take the same stance on illegal trail building and poaching.


On the other hand, you'd still be riding trails that were originally built without permission by mountain bikers.

But I agree with you, MTBR should ban any discussion of street racing. It leads to even worse behavior, drinking Red Bull and listening to heavy metal music.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> On the other hand, you'd still be riding trails that were originally built without permission by mountain bikers.
> 
> But I agree with you, MTBR should ban any discussion of street racing. It leads to even worse behavior, drinking Red Bull and listening to heavy metal music.


No, I wouldn't but even with that said there comes a time in any fringe activity, group, thought process's existence that it must mature and leave its outside the rules existence behind if it wishes to be taken seriously.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> But it is about you. If you are too dense to see that see that I don't know what to tell you. Your actions made public and continued championing of these activities lend credibility in the minds of people going to do what these people did. It's the same reason quite a few car forums ban any discussion of street racing. I, for one, wish MTBR would take the same stance on illegal trail building and poaching.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


No one is ever going to give a damn about the rake'n'rides he's making on logging land in the middle of nowhere. No one. Ever.

We do similar stuff on industrial land in my area on a wink and nod. We also do some moto and ATV trails the same way, knowing that the entire area is going to be eventually utilized for a sand and gravel operation and then an industrial park and hundreds of acres of woods and hills are going to completely disappear. These aren't pristine forests or nature preserves he's talking about, it's working land that is going to see major logging operations at some down the road.

Doesn't remotely compare to what the guys in the article did at all IMHO.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> No one is ever going to give a damn about the rake'n'rides he's making on logging land in the middle of nowhere. No one. Ever.
> 
> We do similar stuff on industrial land in my area on a wink and nod. We also do some moto and ATV trails the same way, knowing that the entire area is going to be eventually utilized for a sand and gravel operation and then an industrial park and hundreds of acres of woods and hills are going to completely disappear. These aren't pristine forests or nature preserves he's talking about, it's working land that is going to see major logging operations at some down the road.
> 
> Doesn't remotely compare to what the guys in the article did at all IMHO.


I didn't say his trails were an issue... I said his public attitude and condoning of it was an issue. That is the entirety of my post you tried to strawman away.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> I didn't say his trails were an issue... I said his public attitude and condoning of it was an issue. That is the entirety of my post you tried to strawman away.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


So who and what exactly were you referring to when you said "your actions made public"?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> But it is about you. If you are too dense to see that see that I don't know what to tell you. Your actions made public and continued championing of these activities lend credibility in the minds of people going to do what these people did. It's the same reason quite a few car forums ban any discussion of street racing. I, for one, wish MTBR would take the same stance on illegal trail building and poaching.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Its not about me. I've never condoned building rogue trail on posted land. I've never used chemicals for trail building purposes. I've never built rogue trail in Indiana. I've never created a FB page detailing the rogue trail work in an illegal posted area.

Car forums? Street racing? There you go spewing off topic once again.:nono:


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Its not about me. I've never condoned building rogue trail on posted land. I've never used chemicals for trail building purposes. I've never built rogue trail in Indiana. I've never created a FB page detailing the rogue trail work in an illegal posted area.
> 
> Car forums? Street racing? There you go spewing off topic once again.:nono:


Nice try at deflecting. No, when you say I build rogue trails, I'm going to keep building rogue trails, and there is nothing wrong with building rogue trails in a public forum you, in the eyes of others, tacitly condone it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> So who and what exactly were you referring to when you said "your actions made public"?


His actions building trails. You can try to strawman it but that is not an indictment of the finished product. It is an indictment of the actions that others now feel they can replicate. I know it may blow your mind but the two can be seperated.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> His actions building trails.


So wait...now his trails ARE an issue?

Which is it?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> So wait...now his trails ARE an issue?
> 
> Which is it?


Like I said, I understand if this blows your mind. I'll try to simplify it for you. The actions made public, the act, not the result of the actions are the issue at large.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Like I said, I understand if this blows your mind. I'll try to simplify it for you. The actions made public, the act, not the result of the actions are the issue at large.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


So you have no problem with the trails existing, just with them being built?

"I know it may blow your mind but the two can be seperated [sic]."

Tell me more about these trails that exist but were never built.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> So you have no problem with the trails existing, just with them being built?
> 
> "I know it may blow your mind but the two can be seperated [sic]."
> 
> Tell me more about these trails that exist but were never built.


Yes, because that's the logical conclusion. Congratulations on finding the power button this morning.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes, because that's the logical conclusion. Congratulations on finding the power button this morning.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


When you've got nothing else, go to insults and whiny neg rep comments.

The Indiana trail are obviously an issue, that's why they shouldn't have been built.
But if other trails aren't an issue, then neither is building them.

Not complicated.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> When you've got nothing else, go to insults and whiny neg rep comments.
> 
> The Indiana trail are obviously an issue, that's why they shouldn't have been built.
> But if other trails aren't an issue, then neither is building them.
> ...


So sayeth the troll. At least I hope you're a troll. Otherwise my congratulations still stands.

It's obvious you get it. You just don't want to admit it.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> So sayeth the troll. At least I hope you're a troll. Otherwise my congratulations still stands.
> 
> You can tell you get it you just don't want to admit it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


No, actually, I disagree with you Carnac. 
Try not to get too upset about it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> No, actually, I disagree with you Carnac.
> Try not to get too upset about it.


Actually, you don't as you haven't been able to demonstrate that you even comprehend the point. In fact you're demonstrating quite the opposite.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Actually, you don't as you haven't been able to demonstrate that you even comprehend the point. In fact you're demonstrating quite the opposite.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You're a funny little fella Carnac.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> You're a funny little fella Carnac.


And now the individual complaining about insults is resorting to one liners, telling...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> And now the individual complaining about insults is resorting to one liners, telling...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Have you notice how much of your time you spend here having pretty much this exact conversation with many different people?

Sometimes if you find yourself believing that everybody else has a problem, the problem actually lies a lot closer to home.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

slapheadmofo said:


> Have you notice how much of your time you spend here having pretty much this exact conversation with many different people?
> 
> Sometimes if you find yourself believing that everybody else has a problem, the problem actually lies a lot closer to home.


Well, if I thought you had an actual problem it would be a completely different conversation...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Well, if I thought you had an actual problem it would be a completely different conversation...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Oh no! That sounds serious!

:yawn:


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> No, I wouldn't but even with that said there comes a time in any fringe activity, group, thought process's existence that it must mature and leave its outside the rules existence behind if it wishes to be taken seriously.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Why the heck does our sport need to be taken seriously? It's riding bikes. Playing. Fun. There's way more than plenty of serious in this world already.

Talk about first world problems lol.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Nice try at deflecting. No, when you say I build rogue trails, I'm going to keep building rogue trails, and there is nothing wrong with building rogue trails in a public forum you, in the eyes of others, tacitly condone it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I condone rogue trail creating where it works. Mine have worked for near 30 years, along with hundreds upon hundreds of rogue trails near where I grew up and in other states where I've lived. After spending time on here I've learned a lot about other regions, especially out west where rogue building just doesn't fly. Now I know.

You say that by me condoning rogue trail building on a public forum, that it will make others think that it's ok and they will go on ahead and build rogue trail. Well do you have scientific data to back that up? People have built rogue trails for eons, our sport in most regions were built on the phenomenon. And it isn't going to slow down sorry to tell you.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

What goes up must come down

Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round...


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> ...when you say I build rogue trails, I'm going to keep building rogue trails, and there is nothing wrong with building rogue trails in a public forum you, in the eyes of others, tacitly condone it.


I tacitly condone it. And if you ride a mountain bike, on mountain bike trails, you have and you will ride on unsanctioned trails, even though they may now be sanctioned. Don't pretend otherwise. It makes you seem out of touch, or maybe a roadie.

I just love the spirit of rogue trail builders. They have passion and commitment to our sport. Even if these two numbskulls made some very bad decisions, I know I'd like to ride with them and swap stories. What they should have done is route their illegal trail right down the fairway of that 18 hole golf course inside the same State Park.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Why the heck does our sport need to be taken seriously? It's riding bikes. Playing. Fun. There's way more than plenty of serious in this world already.
> 
> Talk about first world problems lol.


The fact that you are asking this question is telling of just how much credence your voice should be given in this discussion.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> I tacitly condone it. And if you ride a mountain bike, on mountain bike trails, you have and you will ride on unsanctioned trails, even though they may now be sanctioned. Don't pretend otherwise. It makes you seem out of touch, or maybe a roadie.
> 
> I just love the spirit of rogue trail builders. They have passion and commitment to our sport. Even if these two numbskulls made some very bad decisions, I know I'd like to ride with them and swap stories. What they should have done is route their illegal trail right down the fairway of that 18 hole golf course inside the same State Park.


To reiterate, the past is the past and reliving it is not always the appropriate tactic.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

tuckerjt07 said:


> To reiterate, the past is the past and reliving it is not always the appropriate tactic.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


In central Colorado, lately especially, rogue trail building is frowned on pretty bad. Many old and barely used hidden trails began getting nailed by legions of dirt bikers and atvees about ten years ago. And in the process a lot of land was nearly destroyed. If a lot of people outright condone (and promote) rogue building nowadays we will lose a lot of trail access. Things are certainly different in other places. But that's the way it is here.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> To reiterate, the past is the past and reliving it is not always the appropriate tactic.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


For you maybe, but for some of us, what worked then, works perfectly fine now, and will in the future.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> The fact that you are asking this question is telling of just how much credence your voice should be given in this discussion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Oh yeah? And why is that?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Oh yeah? And why is that?


Because you have a myopic worldview and a selfish me first mentality that ignores the rest of the world.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Because you have a myopic worldview and a selfish me first mentality that ignores the rest of the world.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


And how do you rate?


----------



## IPunchCholla (Dec 8, 2013)

Switchblade2 said:


> Endo what does "land was nearly destroyed" mean? I like to look at trails in a certain area by their total footprink compared to the total area they are built in. The National Forest that the Sedona MTB trails are located in is about 500,000 acres. Our MTB footprint is approximately 64 acres of the total 500,000.
> 
> If you ever visit Sedona you will see tens of thousands of acres that have been destroyed by Mother Nature. The erosion is wide spread and due to the steepness of the terrain will be "destroyed" at a rapid pace for millions of years during significant rain periods.
> 
> The majority of our most popular Sedona MTB trails are user created and the environmental damage from those trails is negligible compared to Mother Nature's part.


While I agree with you for the most part, here in Albuquerque (so not too different in terms of terrain), the poorly built user trails become these giant gashes in the landscape that look and act quite different than the natural arroyos. While the amount of erosion from human causes is smaller than that by nature, it appears quite different (usually uglier) and pisses off hikers as they are constantly reminded of human damage while trying to be out in nature. Also, human impact stretches well beyond the trail bed. The sounds we make and the way we change erosion impacts extends well beyond the trail bed. I'm not saying this is limited to mountain bikes. It's not. Dogs on trails effect wildlife enormously. Nor am I saying that the erosion caused by rogue trails is geologically significant. But it certainly can be politically significant. Glad it works where you are. But I also recognize rogue building doesn't work everywhere.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

It's hilarious that evidence of human traffic through a natural environment is viewed as some inorganic thing. Clip a branch or saw a sapling to make way for a handlebar and you're a criminal. As if traces of human-powered egress through an area are destructive, but game paths and moose browse and giant mature stands of trees coming down in a micro burst are just part of nature. 

Until we utilize diesel, excavate, dig excessively, start moving water and trucking materials around we are no different than any other animal out in the forest doing it's rounds.

Trails are just the way to places people like to go.

If this type of primitive land use is resulting in degradation, then it has too many users. Move to an area with less people. Rogue trail is mostly an issue where the population is too dense, or people are trying to make money on trail building. Those two factors are also the prime forces that inevitably destroy MTB trails by overuse and sanitation.

If you love MTB so much that you want to build rogue trails....move to an area where there are few people and no one is working as a paid crew and no one will give a rats ass if you have half a brain and do some research before getting started.

In areas that have been overrun by humans, or corrupted by the self appointed experts, the average trail rider has lost his or her voice, lost control. They must yield to those who have taken charge of development for the sake of "Growing the Sport" or whatever the ambiguous goal might be stated, but sadly, Orgs that may have started out of a real need for access seem more and more an extension of the marketing and sales of a lifestyle that is fundamentally opposed to what could be considered an "Organic" or nature-based connection through cycling.
Wake-n-bake logic....probably suspect, maybe a little truth.


----------



## LargeMan (May 20, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Strawman? Hyperbole?
> 
> No, you just don't want the precedent set because you're going to continue doing things that jeopardize others access. People like you who get on forums and condone *ebikes *and argue that it is harmless are part of the problem. They are part of what gives people like this the idea and "bravery" to do so. This will significantly harm new trail efforts in that area, perhaps to the point of effectively stopping it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


We talking about ebikes?


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

DaveVt said:


> It's hilarious that evidence of human traffic through a natural environment is viewed as some inorganic thing. Clip a branch or saw a sapling to make way for a handlebar and you're a criminal. As if traces of human-powered egress through an area are destructive, but game paths and moose browse and giant mature stands of trees coming down in a micro burst are just part of nature.
> 
> Until we utilize diesel, excavate, dig excessively, start moving water and trucking materials around we are no different than any other animal out in the forest doing it's rounds.
> 
> ...


"Growing the sport" "we need to be taken seriously" lol.

Just like with all of these new backcountry ski advocacy orgs popping up left and right. Why do we need to grow the sport? Have you heard how much of a sh1tshow Brandon gap has become? I'm sure you have. No longer a wilderness experience.

Granite Backcountry Alliance over this way is really trying their hardest to overpopulated the White Mountain national forest. Frigging travesty. All because the saw what RASTA was doing. Copycat chest puffers. "BC skiers need a unified voice" they say. Ummm no we don't. BC skiing, much like MTB isn't broken and needs no fixing IMO.

Ya I'm getting way off topic, don't get me started.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

HacksawReynolds said:


> "Growing the sport" "we need to be taken seriously" lol.
> 
> Just like with all of these new backcountry ski advocacy orgs popping up left and right. Why do we need to grow the sport? Have you heard how much of a sh1tshow Brandon gap has become? I'm sure you have. No longer a wilderness experience.
> 
> ...


I haven't heard any specific stories. Have heard tales of 30-40 cars in the lot. Kiosks are the modern Tombstones for recreational resources.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Endo what does "land was nearly destroyed" mean? I like to look at trails in a certain area by their total footprint compared to the total area they are built in. The National Forest that the Sedona MTB trails are located in is about 500,000 acres. Our MTB footprint is approximately 64 acres of the total 500,000.
> 
> If you ever visit Sedona you will see tens of thousands of acres that have been destroyed by Mother Nature. The erosion is wide spread and due to the steepness of the terrain will be "destroyed" at a rapid pace for millions of years during significant rain periods.
> 
> ...


Your comparing a natural landscape created over millions of years to erosion caused by a trail in a decade? Too many safety breaks switch!

I'd argue that any trail is an impact on the landscape and is technically resource damage. I'd also argue that the presence of the trail minimizes impact to the resource by keeping users on the trail. IF, it's a good trail.

Not all rouge trail builders turn out a quality work product. That is mostly the issue for me. Yes, it can give the biking community a black eye and backfire on those trying to do things through the proper channels but if your going to do it, it had better be good.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

rockman said:


> Your comparing a natural landscape created over millions of years to erosion caused by a trail in a decade?


Not always, do you know of the Scablands?

Not defending SB btw, "mother nature is the biggest enemy to the environment" is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard around here, which is saying a lot.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Switchblade2 said:


> Endo what does "land was nearly destroyed" mean?


I would define destroyed as:

A) What results when a barely visible foot trail which has been around for decades with little long term erosion becomes an 18" deep trench. A trench which now collects surface water and is in the process of becoming a new draw. A new geological feature of the landscape.
B) When a natural gully at the headwaters of a small creek is turned into a half pipe feature (by motorized recreationalists) for hundreds of yards devoid of all ground cover . The unprotected topsoil then wastes into the creek after each rainstorm.
C) High country wetlands criss croseed by ATVees and dirt bikes. If you ever see a Jeep advertisement on TV where the subliminal message is "If you buy this Jeep you can let lots of mud fly while you destroy a fragile riparian zone" then you have a good picture of these torn up wetlands. 
D) Inverted "U" shaped tracks where dirt bikes attempt to set the high mark on a particularly steep hillside. Much the way snowmobilers do over the snow in the winter.

A lot of these incidences of destruction occur along what was at one time a fairly innocent looking rogue trail.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

J.B. Weld said:


> Not always, do you know of the Scablands?
> 
> Not defending SB btw, "mother nature is the biggest enemy to the environment" is one of the more ludicrous things I've heard around here, which is saying a lot.


Yes, a glacial outburst flood or jökulhlaup must have been an impressive thing to see. And an immense amount of geomorphic change in an instant. Anyhow, as you noted it's a ludicrous stretch to rationalize unsanctioned trail building because the earth is eroding. What a bunch of self-serving, self-entitled crap.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

Switchblade2 said:


> Endo I get what "DESTROYED" is but previously you stated "ALMOST DESTROYED" are they the same thing?


Sure. A lot of rehab work has been done. Everything is fixable. Then some trails get closed to everybody. I guess my point is that what seems like innocent corridor clearing and riding in one part of the country where there isn't much trail use pressure, can be pretty damaging in another setting. Western Colorado has gone from still being fairly wild and untouched when I got there in the 1970's, to pretty much solid urban/ suburban sprawl today. At least in the flat valleys. And all these new people that want to recreate out their back doors are sometimes causing a lot of damage. So we are being forced to use the forests more wisely than in the past. Or we will lose all access.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rock I am not implying that a well constructed trail doesn't cause environmental impact when according to the District Forester impact is BAD, not INSIGNIFICANT.
> 
> When the land manager is going to build nineteen miles of new trail does their NEPA emphasize that there is going to be BAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT for nineteen miles? If not, why not?
> 
> ...


I really don't understand your POV. I suspect I never will. I don't think of natural events as environmental damage. IMO, comparing the impacts of a trail to non-anthropogenic agents of change just sounds like more justification for doing whatever you want on public land. Fine, we'll have to agree to disagree. You already know what the consequences are and have paid the price. I respect your opinion even if I don't agree with it.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

Am I tripping, or is that Fence around the preserve about ten feel long?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I have been out riding the Sedona trail system where we have outstanding trail conditions and a beautiful sunny day in Paradise. After getting home I did about five minutes of Internet research and came up with this article (https://shop.ecoplum.com/blogs/sustainable-living/18611844-environmental-impact-of-forest-fires) and many others like it. Are you being scarcastic or do you really believe "natural events as environmental damage"?
> 
> I do agree the USFS poorly managed US forests for many years and screwed up the ecosystem. What I don't understand is why if you are correct they have BAER (https://www.fs.fed.us/science-technology/fire/after-fire)?
> 
> ...


No, it's just the absurdity of your comment claiming the environment harms the environment more than humans has made it obvious you, and others, will say and do anything, no matter the level of absurdity, to justify your actions. A trail when routed through a sensitive or off limits area can and will most likely do harm that will not be healed in our and, in some instances, any person's lifetime.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I have been out riding the Sedona trail system where we have outstanding trail conditions and a beautiful sunny day in Paradise. After getting home I did about five minutes of Internet research and came up with this article (https://shop.ecoplum.com/blogs/sustainable-living/18611844-environmental-impact-of-forest-fires) and many others like it. Are you being scarcastic or do you really believe "natural events as environmental damage"?
> 
> I do agree the USFS poorly managed US forests for many years and screwed up the ecosystem. What I don't understand is why if you are correct they have BAER (https://www.fs.fed.us/science-technology/fire/after-fire)?
> 
> ...


I disagree with the premise of your argument. As I posted above, a well routed sustainable trail minimizes damage to the resource by keeping users on the trail. Unfortunately not all unsanctioned trails are well built or routed but whatever. In my locale the environmental impact, besides erosion which is an impact no matter what you think, is the Mexican spotted owl. Do I think a couple of measly trails impact the owls? I don't think so but I'm not qualified to make that assessment. As frustrating as it is it's still public land managed by the USFS. Much easier to get things done in Moab where the land manager is the BLM, an agency just as likely to approve a trail as it is to sanction drilling and resource extraction.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

I think what Switch was saying is exactly what friends of mine at the Forest Service have told me. Snowmelt runoff, heavy rain storms, wind, dry weather, bark beetles, lightning strikes, wild fires, and other natural occurrences do infinitely more damage to the land than humans will ever do. 

You don't disprove that by saying you saw a hundred feet of off-road truck damage that led to deep ruts that were unsightly. 

No amount of human activity along the east coast will ever match the damage done by storm surge. I think before the Three Gorges Dam was built in China, they set a record for human loss of life at something like 200,000 people, from flooding. Seasonal flooding in Bangladesh always kills large numbers of people. 

Bark beetles and wild fires kill more trees than logging operations. But because of massive tree planting operations, we have more trees in the U.S. than at any time in human history. 

Well built trails are fairly sustainable. Poorly built trails are mostly maintainable. Many trails started off as game trails that are sometimes fall line trails that the land managers neglected to reroute. 

A couple people are attempting to discredit rogue trail building by suggesting that irreparable damage is done by those trails that will ultimately lead to closures of those trails and to future opportunities for new trails. The actual evidence strongly suggests that rogue trails lead to more access for riders and more trails adopted into the lawful system that were once rogue trails. Land managers might not like rogue trails, but they adopt the large percentage of them into their system of trails, almost as a reward to the builders for saving them the time and effort. Those that question this fact, especially on this thread, are outsiders, with very little working knowledge of the land managers. 

Take Sedona for an example. Let's round off the number of rogue user built trails to an even 100. Of those, how many have been adopted and how many did the land managers close down, and how many are they yet to determine their status? I'm guessing they adopted 80, shut down 5-10, and are still deciding what to do about the remainder. I like those odds. You would never walk away from a poker table if you had those kinds of odds of winning. 

In Flagstaff, where Rockman and I spent a lot of time exploring the trails, there are what, 30 or maybe 50 or more user built trails. I can't think of one that was shut down by the Forest Service. I spoke to FS staff and asked them about it and they told me that the bosses find it easier to adopt the user built trails than play cat and mouse with the people building and using them. Plus, it often serve their purpose and they can sort of take credit for adding those additional miles of trails into the system. 

I really get the sense that the critics on this thread live in a bubble and are out of touch with reality. We got to where we are today mostly because of mountain bikers going out and building great trails.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Boris Badenov said:


> I think what Switch was saying is exactly what friends of mine at the Forest Service have told me. Snowmelt runoff, heavy rain storms, wind, dry weather, bark beetles, lightning strikes, wild fires, and other natural occurrences do infinitely more damage to the land than humans will ever do.


I realize this is stating the obvious but you are crazy. Snowmelt, heavy rain storms, wind, etc, are things that make our planet habitable for us and every other living creature. Without mother nature's "wrath" we would quickly starve.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Switchblade2 said:


> I will bet you $1,000 that Boris isn't "CRAZY".


OK you're on, we need an impartial arbitrator.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Switchblade2 said:


> When you say "Without nature's wrath we would quickly starve." What does that have to do with mountain bike trail insignificant impact?


Nothing, I was responding to Boris's ridiculous statement.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

J.B. Weld said:


> OK you're on, we need an impartial arbitrator.


Careful Switch, that's a lot of cabbage. I can't make any promises. Oh, I'm not mad, I'm really not mad, really. But evidence suggests I may be slowly going mad. Like my friend, the plastic surgeon;


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> In Flagstaff, where Rockman and I spent a lot of time exploring the trails, there are what, 30 or maybe 50 or more user built trails. I can't think of one that was shut down by the Forest Service. I spoke to FS staff and asked them about it and they told me that the bosses find it easier to adopt the user built trails than play cat and mouse with the people building and using them. Plus, it often serve their purpose and they can sort of take credit for adding those additional miles of trails into the system.
> 
> I really get the sense that the critics on this thread live in a bubble and are out of touch with reality. We got to where we are today mostly because of mountain bikers going out and building great trails.


I can only think of two. Upper Moto and Secret Trail and the latter was burned in by motorcycles. Name the other 30 or 50 trails built by mtn bikers and adopted by the FS into the system. Exaggeration doesn't help build your case. Either way, equating natural disasters to the environmental impact caused by trails and using that as justification to do whatever you want to the landscape is misguided. Sad even. Perhaps even crazy. And I love trails. Carry on.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Perhaps even crazy...









Lower Oldham
Middle Oldham
Upper Oldham
Christmas Tree Trail
Wildlife Tree Trail
Spring Trail
Lower Brookbank
Upper Brookbank
Moto
Upper Moto
Lost Burrito
Private Reserve
Red Onion
Weenies Walk
Pickle 
Jedi
Chunky Monkey
Secret Trail
Hotshot
La Bamba
Dog Food
Ricochet
Little Gnarly
Climb 3
Overlook Weatherford
Your Mama
Wassabi
Orion Springs
Super Fly
Newham
Danzo
Tikka Missala
The connector trail between Rocky Moto and Lower Moto
Several trails just above the pipeline between Lower Oldham and Elden Grave site
The connector trail from Lower Oldham to Jump Trail
Jump Trail
possibly Rocky Ridge
possibly Fisher Point and Sandy's Canyon
Feeder trails onto Sandy's Canyon
Marshall Lake trails (AZ Trail corridor)
The old trails from the archery range to the Arboretum
Several trails leading down to highway 89 tunnel from Christmas Tree trail
Several trails above Christmas Tree trail up and around the reservoir
Trails breaking off of Christmas Tree trail and following the power line north
Some of the original trails on Campbell Mesa
Trails behind Little America that lead to Walnut Canyon

I think that's around 50 trails not built by the Forest Service and not destroyed by the Forest Service.

Any questions?


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> Perhaps even crazy...
> 
> View attachment 1183477
> 
> ...


With the exception of the two trails I already mentioned your laundry list does not include trails built by mtn bikers that were adopted by the FS. Zip. I didn't ask any questions, just pointing out that you are using hyperbole to justify unsanctioned trails. It's nice that for the most part the FS hasn't closed any of the social trails but that's different. And it's a huge stretch to say the FS has adopted them and are taking credit for adding any of them to the system as you stated above. Most are old hiking trails or roads. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/coconino/recreation/?cid=stelprdb5320237&width=full

I repeat, not one trail that was illegally built by mtn bikers in the Flagstaff Ranger District has been adopted by the USFS. Except maybe Newham which is part of Secret trail and upper Moto arguably burned in by motorcycles.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> With the exception of the two trails I already mentioned your laundry list does not include trails built by mtn bikers that were adopted by the FS. Zip.
> 
> I repeat, not one trail that was illegally built by mtn bikers in the Flagstaff Ranger District has been adopted by the USFS. Except maybe Newham which is part of Secret trail and upper Moto arguably burned in by motorcycles.


Zip? I've got $100 burning a hole in my pocket that says you are wrong. Care to take me on? Both built by mountain biker(s) and adopted by the FS. My money is where my mouth is. How about you?


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> Zip? I've got $100 burning a hole in my pocket that says you are wrong. Care to take me on? Both built by mountain biker(s) and adopted by the FS. My money is where my mouth is. How about you?


OK, your on. Show proof that the trail is signed and listed by the USFS as an official system trail. If I am wrong I will donate $100 to the FBO trail fund Donate to the Trail Maintenance & Construction Fund | Setting Wheels in Motion

As for my money being where my mouth is here's the plan I recently submitted for adoption and/or realignment of 11 miles of social trail, including an additional 4 miles of the new trail south of 164B which is something I believe you would like to see. I also wrote the proposal that just got the green light to build 8 mile of trail this summer with the kickoff on National Trails Day. See you there!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

One important thing I've learned in this thread. Murder isn't a big deal, I mean everyone is going to die naturally anyways. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

I'm not going to wade in on the actual argument of rogue trail building specifically but I'm going to wholeheartedly agree with Switch and Boris on the "Mother Nature vs Human damage" argument. There's absolutely ZERO contest when comparing the two. To imply otherwise is silly. Boris had an excellent example with the bark beetle. How much damage did the Mt St Helens blast do all on it's own. I've been back there to see the area post-eruption and I was truly astonished because the amount of damage was monumental and truly UNBELIEVABLE. If I didn't see it, I wouldn't believe it. I would assume somebody telling me about it was exaggerating or straight up lying like CNN. 

There a place I ride is SW Colorado where at one point I'm up on a plateau and for as far as the eye can see, there is zero evidence than humans exist. Every time I'm there is when I realize how insignificant the damage we do as mountain bikers is. They could build 1000 miles of trails in the area I look over and not cause .00001% of "damage".


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

k2rider1964 said:


> To equate the two is silly.


FIFY

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Yeah ma nature isn't trespassing or taking part in any illegal trail related activities as far as I know. Ma nature just happens. She gets a hall pass.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Yeah ma nature isn't trespassing or taking part in any illegal trail related activities as far as I know. Ma nature just happens. She gets a hall pass.


That wasn't what I was addressing and made that perfectly clear.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

k2rider1964 said:


> That wasn't what I was addressing and made that perfectly clear.


His point was perfectly clear as well. Your attempt to equate the two is ludicrous at best.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

tuckerjt07 said:


> His point was perfectly clear as well. Your attempt to equate the two is ludicrous at best.
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Equate what? I was addressing ONE argument made earlier ion the thread where Switchblade and Rockman were essentially debating whether Mother Nature or Mountain Bikers do more damage to the land/environment. That's it. Nothing else. If you think that mountain bikers do more damage than Mother Nature, we'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

k2rider1964 said:


> Equate what? I was addressing ONE argument made earlier ion the thread where Switchblade and Rockman were essentially debating whether Mother Nature or Mountain Bikers do more damage to the land/environment. That's it. Nothing else. If you think that mountain bikers do more damage than Mother Nature, we'll just agree to disagree.


Equating mountain biking damage to natural "damage". Nature cannot damage itself. Can it rework its own landscape, absolutely. However, if there is no outside force other than nature you're making a very dubious stretch to call that damage. Honestly, especially if in a debate with an environmentalist, if you use that argument you're going to come off as obscenely foolish.

For those of you thinking of making that argument outside of this site, think about this. Erosion/flood control, such as a levee system on a river, is actually environmental damage. Altering nature's ability to shape the landscape, ecosystem and soil composition from what would naturally occur is damaging to the environment. It can however be a necessary evil to support human life.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> the massive ecological damage she does.


That's called natural events.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

And to construe trail construction as a natural event is laughable.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> K2 thanks for siting some other examples of Mother Nature power to change the current landscape. It would be nice if mountain bike trail IMPACT could be compared to some of the biggest natural disasters that she has reeked on the planet in just the last twenty years.
> 
> Would you ever get a landmanager or mountain bike hater to acknowledge the difference, NEVER? Even with the different people viewing or posting on this thread who are mountain bikers, some can't acknowledge the massive ecological damage she does. To me it's a no brainer.


You are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify, both to yourself and others, past negligent behavior. Frankly the attempt to equate the two is one of the most idiotic statements I have heard recently.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> One important thing I've learned in this thread. Murder isn't a big deal, I mean everyone is going to die naturally anyways.


If I may correct you, there is not a single thing of importance you have learned from this thread. Or most other threads you take part in. This is a subject best left to people several pay grades above you, with many years of experience resolving difficult issues involving trail access and improving user experience.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> OK, your on. Show proof that the trail is signed and listed by the USFS as an official system trail. If I am wrong I will donate $100 to the FBO trail fund Donate to the Trail Maintenance & Construction Fund | Setting Wheels in Motion
> 
> As for my money being where my mouth is here's the plan I recently submitted for adoption and/or realignment of 11 miles of social trail, including an additional 4 miles of the new trail south of 164B which is something I believe you would like to see. I also wrote the proposal that just got the green light to build 8 mile of trail this summer with the kickoff on National Trails Day. See you there!
> 
> ...


Those maps are the best proposals I have ever seen. Trail #12 has been near the top of my list for over a decade. No more riding up FR 164b.

Danzo is now designated as part of the Loop Trail. when Sean Murphy fist discovered it, he paid a conservation crew to come out and cover it with logs and branches and rocks and boulders. A few days later, there were a couple of riders removing that material. I spoke to one of those two and he was under the impression that some hikers must have come out and covered up a Forest Service approved trail. He was certain it was already designated part of the Loop Trail. I didn't tell him the truth because I enjoyed watching him reopen the trail. Then it stayed open. Moreso, it has become quite popular, even despite the dozer road cut nearby for the thinning project. What the FS cleverly decided, was that they themselves had plans to build part of the loop trail near Danzo, but below the gasoline road. They had already adopted The Spring Trail and other trails near forces of Nature, to be part of their Loop Trail. I helped work on some reroutes. I have noticed a couple carsonite markers have been placed in the ground along that route, but I don't know what that means. There are no wooden signs that have been erected.

According to your requirements, I have failed to prove my case. I don't care if I fell short here because your trail construction fund is a worthy cause and I was going to ask you to donate to it if you lost, so I will gladly donate to it if I'm considered the loser of this bet. Or we can call it a draw and both donate. I'll even show up if you need help doing trail work.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> If I may correct you, there is not a single thing of importance you have learned from this thread. Or most other threads you take part in. This is a subject best left to people several pay grades above you, with many years of experience resolving difficult issues involving trail access and improving user experience.


Now if I may correct you. I've learned that there are three people, for sure at least, who should never be listened to in regards to what you claim I know nothing about due to them being bumbling buffoons in the realm of what truly constitutes environmental damge. In fact, if they actually made the argument in question to a conservation officer it would most likely cause irreparable harm to their perception of mountain bikers and how they view environmental impact. I'm responding to one, can you guess the other two?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> Those maps are the best proposals I have ever seen. Trail #12 has been near the top of my list for over a decade. No more riding up FR 164b.
> 
> Danzo is now designated as part of the Loop Trail. when Sean Murphy fist discovered it, he paid a conservation crew to come out and cover it with logs and branches and rocks and boulders. A few days later, there were a couple of riders removing that material. I spoke to one of those two and he was under the impression that some hikers must have come out and covered up a Forest Service approved trail. He was certain it was already designated part of the Loop Trail. I didn't tell him the truth because I enjoyed watching him reopen the trail. Then it stayed open. Moreso, it has become quite popular, even despite the dozer road cut nearby for the thinning project. What the FS cleverly decided, was that they themselves had plans to build part of the loop trail near Danzo, but below the gasoline road. They had already adopted The Spring Trail and other trails near forces of Nature, to be part of their Loop Trail. I helped work on some reroutes. I have noticed a couple carsonite markers have been placed in the ground along that route, but I don't know what that means. There are no wooden signs that have been erected.
> 
> According to your requirements, I have failed to prove my case. I don't care if I fell short here because your trail construction fund is a worthy cause and I was going to ask you to donate to it if you lost, so I will gladly donate to it if I'm considered the loser of this bet. Or we can call it a draw and both donate. I'll even show up if you need help doing trail work.


Ok, deal. If donating to the FBO trail fund is egregious you can help Switchblade with his little project where some of his pet trails are getting adopted. https://www.vvcc.us/page-18157

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but not only is Danzo not a system trail it's not part of the loop trail either. In fact, once Phase 1 thinning as part of FWPP is finished the plan is for the segment to be routed on the other side of the pipeline.
http://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=91e0af6714ec4631a1193110a6676abc
http://flagstaffbiking.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/loop-trail-map-oct-07-segments-46mb.pdf
https://www.avenzamaps.com/maps/89107/flagstaff-loop-trail/

Anyhow, 3 unsanctioned trails have been built in the last 2 years and another one had a bunch of gap jumps and a wood structure built on it. The FS closed one of the trails and the other one they likely don't know about. The trail with the structures apparently has a game camera on it but I haven't confirmed that. With regard to the OP's intent with this thread IMO these activities are not helping our cause as we submit proposals for more and better trails. It gives the mtb community a black eye and also provides the Sierra Club with more ammunition. Conversely, you could make the case that it's just more additional social trail mileage implying the FS isn't meeting the needs of the community. No easy answers.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> Ok, deal. If donating to the FBO trail fund is egregious you can help Switchblade with his little project where some of his pet trails are getting adopted. https://www.vvcc.us/page-18157
> 
> And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but not only is Danzo not a system trail it's not part of the loop trail either. In fact, once Phase 1 thinning as part of FWPP is finished the plan is for the segment to be routed on the other side of the pipeline.
> http://www.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=91e0af6714ec4631a1193110a6676abc
> ...


Ah yes, "the plan". Let me offer some insight into the plan. back in 1996, you could walk into the train station and visitors center and get a folding map of Flagstaffs trails and proposed trails. Still waiting for that plan to come to fruition. No offense toward the map makers you linked to, but one seems to be from 2009, and seems inaccurate. I try to follow it around the base of Elden and it looks like it doesn't even go up to the spring, near the grave site. And the FS has maps showing Wildlife Tree Trail is the trail that breaks off of Elden Lookout Trail and runs down behind the old Christiansen Elementary School. I don't know why some old timer volunteer crafted a sign calling something the pipeline trail. In my mind, the pipeline trail is the trail on the gas pipeline road. You and I know that if we wait to see the plan completed, we will be waiting a long time. Do you seriously think that when the thinning is done, someone will prioritize a new trail running below the pipeline, when there is an incredibly popular trail already in place above it, that the FS has adopted? The FS helped organize the trail work on the Spring Trail and said it was now part of the Loop Trail. That was over ten years ago. I'm not sure how they would route a new trail to cross over the pipeline. I would guess that it would be item number 101 on their list of things to get done in the coming decade. I'd much rather see them put priority on your trail suggestions. Those are far superior and much more needed.

Maybe you can insure that any donations to FBO's trail building fund will not be handled in the same manner as the IMBA funds they misappropriated and used under false pretenses to repair damages to Lower Oldham Trail done during the race they sponsored. Maybe we can buy them three pick mattocks they can put to use. Giving Anthony cash is like giving a street drunk cash while he is begging in front of a liquor store.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

tuckerjt07 said:


> You are grasping at straws in an attempt to justify, both to yourself and others, past negligent behavior. Frankly the attempt to equate the two is one of the most idiotic statements I have heard recently.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Humans are part of the natural world. I know it's hard to detach from the centuries of brainwashing by western religion, BUT....we are just apes with better tools and toys.

Our impacts on the natural world are just as natural as deer, moose, locusts, ect. Until we use heavy equipment or toxic materials as the two guys in this case seem to have, primitive trails forming, being created by hand tools and traffic are natural. They are a part of natural human behavior. Trails have surrounded our dwellings since we first had dwellings.

Yes, these trails are human impact. Measurable damage done. At the same time essentially insignificant as compared to other natural cycles of flood, fire, wind, drought. We need to keep this conversation in perspective. Every foot fall or tire mark is damage...but how much really.

In the NE, the entire forest is a post-industrial landscape, only reclaimed in the last century. There are scars, and gashes left behind from the timber, and quarry industries. Polluted water, fragmented fisheries from dead-beat-dams, and rivers that bake in the summer sun due to loss of canopy on our riparian fringes. Some rivers run dry from diversion for agriculture and other (excessive) human needs.

Humans use and discard 1,000,000 plastic bottles a minute on this planet. All you crusaders oiut there thinking the hippie MTBers raking and snipping in illegal trail are "Ruining" it....wake up.

In terms of impact, a primitive trail with no or almost no excavation is nothing. NOTHING in terms of impact.

Need a cause? Need something to gripe about? Illegal bicycle trails ain't it. Pick something meaningful to get crazy on, there is a long list a legit concerns all around us you could divert your attention too. In the mean time, you don't like rogue trails.....stop riding all the trails that were built in this manner in your area. Maybe you'll realize the folks who made/make those trails deserve a thanks more than a ****-you.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

life behind bars said:


> And to construe trail construction as a natural event is laughable.


Seems natural when I do it. If all the game in the area starts using my corridor after I clear it, is it then natural? If 10 deer per MTBer use it is it a deer trail or an MTB trail? Method of construction is the determining factor to me. You building an excavator road, or are you clearing just enough to ride a bike through. Benching? Moving dirt? Or just leaves and sticks?

Shades of gray. Black vs. white is just a divisive mechanism used to promote a specific agenda....always.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

DaveVt said:


> Humans are part of the natural world. I know it's hard to detach from the centuries of brainwashing by western religion, BUT....we are just apes with better tools and toys.
> 
> Our impacts on the natural world are just as natural as deer, moose, locusts, ect. Until we use heavy equipment or toxic materials as the two guys in this case seem to have, primitive trails forming, being created by hand tools and traffic are natural. They are a part of natural human behavior. Trails have surrounded our dwellings since we first had dwellings.
> 
> ...


Now you are getting somewhere. You agree that trails are human impact. The entire premise of your argument is now flawed. We are discussing trails in locations where human impact is supposed to be kept to a minimum if not altogether banned, ie a nature preserve where it is illegal to enter. So yes, your argument is beyond moronic when you try to use it in that context.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

DaveVt said:


> Seems natural when I do it. If all the game in the area starts using my corridor after I clear it, is it then natural? If 10 deer per MTBer use it is it a deer trail or an MTB trail? Method of construction is the determining factor to me. You building an excavator road, or are you clearing just enough to ride a bike through. Benching? Moving dirt? Or just leaves and sticks?
> 
> Shades of gray. Black vs. white is just a divisive mechanism used to promote a specific agenda....always.


No, you just admitted that your trails have significant environmental impact as they result in a rerouting of established game routes.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Tuck I doubt your personal attacks are going to convince very many people that you can't compare trail IMPACT between man made and Mother Nature. At NAU there is some hotshot who did a map (see attached) of the Sedona area that shows where most of the sedimentation (erosion) comes from that ends up in Oak Creek. The worst case scenario is 530,000 lbs of sediment per acre over a one hour period during a 10 year rain event.
> 
> One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that in Sedona mountain biking trails are not causing a significant amount of silt entering Oak Creek as compared to what Mother Nature does during rain events. What is interesting is that the USFS refuses to show this Sedimentation Chart to the public when discussing Oak Creek siltation. In fact you are correct the Sedona USFS hydrologist doesn't like mountain bikers because they are constantly questioning why she is not telling the public where the majority of soil erosion is coming from.
> 
> ...


How cute, I respond to a personal attack in like manner and you single me out. Why don't you tell the nice people in thread your back story? I'm more than sure that would be helpful in them deciding the worth of the argument you are making.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> Ah yes, "the plan". Let me offer some insight into the plan. back in 1996, you could walk into the train station and visitors center and get a folding map of Flagstaffs trails and proposed trails. Still waiting for that plan to come to fruition. No offense toward the map makers you linked to, but one seems to be from 2009, and seems inaccurate. I try to follow it around the base of Elden and it looks like it doesn't even go up to the spring, near the grave site. And the FS has maps showing Wildlife Tree Trail is the trail that breaks off of Elden Lookout Trail and runs down behind the old Christiansen Elementary School. I don't know why some old timer volunteer crafted a sign calling something the pipeline trail. In my mind, the pipeline trail is the trail on the gas pipeline road. You and I know that if we wait to see the plan completed, we will be waiting a long time. Do you seriously think that when the thinning is done, someone will prioritize a new trail running below the pipeline, when there is an incredibly popular trail already in place above it, that the FS has adopted? The FS helped organize the trail work on the Spring Trail and said it was now part of the Loop Trail. That was over ten years ago. I'm not sure how they would route a new trail to cross over the pipeline. I would guess that it would be item number 101 on their list of things to get done in the coming decade. I'd much rather see them put priority on your trail suggestions. Those are far superior and much more needed.
> 
> Maybe you can insure that any donations to FBO's trail building fund will not be handled in the same manner as the IMBA funds they misappropriated and used under false pretenses to repair damages to Lower Oldham Trail done during the race they sponsored. Maybe we can buy them three pick mattocks they can put to use. Giving Anthony cash is like giving a street drunk cash while he is begging in front of a liquor store.


Right now that portion of the loop trail IS routed on the pipeline. In the Dry Lake Mt. Elden trail proposal it was aligned below it. http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/85554_FSPLT3_1460488.pdf
I agree, Danzo is where it should go. Maybe it's because it was illegally built within the Mt. Elden Environmental Study Area. Not sure, I'll ask.

As for L. Oldham the USFS plan is to reroute most of it. Why put lipstick on a pig? Maybe the IMBA funds got re-directed to re-opening L. Bear after the fire. The damage from a mountain bike race is pretty minimal. Not sure why you are so fired up about that. Anthony also got a bike park built. Maybe he used it for that. I don't really care.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Well at least you admit to doing a personal attack. I don't do personal attacks because they don't really prove anything. I think they make a person look bad when they do it.
> 
> Which back story are you referring to? Why don't you tell the true story and will see if you are correct.
> 
> I assume your talking about being an ambassador for the Sedona mountain bike community visiting Sedona or having made the first complete accurate map of the popular Sedona mountain bike trails and providing it online or offering free shuttles to fellow mountain bikers or cleaning Pit Toilets during the government shutdown or having built the Aerie trail or being cited for doing necessary maintenance on two Sedona system trails that were in better shape after the maintenance was done.


Or the part about you being banned from National Forests due to activities you are still advocating for? You left that one out Mr. Finch.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

Guys, discuss the issues. 

Keep calling other people's points of view "moronic", "Idiotic", "crazy" or some other personal attack and I will be forced to deal with those lobbing personal attacks.

There is plenty of space for dissenting opinions on this site.

There is no room for personal attacks.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> Right now that portion of the loop trail IS routed on the pipeline. In the Dry Lake Mt. Elden trail proposal it was aligned below it. http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/85554_FSPLT3_1460488.pdf
> I agree, Danzo is where it should go. Maybe it's because it was illegally built within the Mt. Elden Environmental Study Area. Not sure, I'll ask.
> 
> As for L. Oldham the USFS plan is to reroute most of it. Why put lipstick on a pig? Maybe the IMBA funds got re-directed to re-opening L. Bear after the fire. The damage from a mountain bike race is pretty minimal. Not sure why you are so fired up about that. Anthony also got a bike park built. Maybe he used it for that. I don't really care.


You have got a lot of really cool maps. That proposed South Elden Trail may never happen, but it is grandiose and I would love to ride up and down it, if only I knew someone skilled at constructing switchbacks got hired to build it.

I like how this map mentions Spring Trail, Wildlife Tree Trail, Walk Through Time, and Forces of Nature. I see they show a rerouted Lower Oldham Trail coming out behind Buffalo Park. About 20 years late. The beauty of releasing these maps of proposed new trails, is it stops a lot of blowback from angry mountain bikers. They believe the promises the FS makes to them, for years, sometimes decades, before they realize they were bamboozled. Anyone can draw lines on a map. But when you discover that nobody really cares to go find funding or make other attempts to see these things through, you see the big picture. You see how rogue builders came to be. What their motivation was/is.

In regards to the Environmental Study Area, you seem to be referring to the area of the Spring Trail and Wildlife Tree Trail. That ESA was created in the 1970's, so teachers at Christiansen Elementary could take students up into the forest and educate them about plants. Remember those 6" x 6" wood posts sticking out of the ground with numbers on them. The teachers had a guide to those to identify each plant type. The posts are gone now. The school shut down. The big sign dedicating the study area is gone. All that happened before Danzo was ever built. And Danzo was built outside of that study area, west of upper 4th street. That's a good half mile or so west of the study area.

I certainly put in over 100 hours of work rehabilitating The Spring trail, to make it a multi-use trail that mountain bikers would enjoy, and I hiked up there with Brian and Sean to show them the work. They approved. So much so that they scheduled a volunteer work day to add additional reroutes on the climbing sections. At that time, they called it the Loop Trail, not an ESA. The ESA is now just part of history. Agreed?

I got fired up because Anthony made an agreement with the Forest Service. In order to change the race route to Rocky Ridge and Lower Oldham, he promised to come in after the race and make needed repairs to the trail where riders skidded into corners and created ruts. He did not keep that promise and never intended to. When I contacted Sean, he said the person Anthony was working with never went out to inspect the route, before or after the race and has no experience working on trails. It was all just lip service. I was out on course before and during and after the race and took pictures of the damages. Anthony got boxed in and said he would send out a trail crew to fix the damages. He didn't. I called him out for lying about it. He then used his contacts with IMBA and their funding of trail projects to hijack their donation, meant for new trail construction, to pay American Conservation Corps crews to do a weeks worth of trail repairs. I was working at ACE at the time and I even went out to oversee the work. Nothing was used for Little Bear.

And sure, Lower Oldham should be rerouted. It can easily be maintained with one quick pass by a trail crew each season, but I'd support a reroute. Again, it would end up on a list of things we all want that won't get done in our lifetimes. The first time rerouting Lower Oldham came up was in a discussion with the IMBA Trail Care Crew in circa 2003. Anthony and I were both present when they made that suggestion during their visit. He has repeated it many times since then and what has come of it? I would think you'd know when you are being hoodwinked by the Forest Service and when there is an actual funded plan to do actual trail construction. Try to make sure they put your new trail proposals at the very top of the list and keep on them until they are funded and ACE is hired to build them.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Boris Badenov said:


> You have got a lot of really cool maps. That proposed South Elden Trail may never happen, but it is grandiose and I would love to ride up and down it, if only I knew someone skilled at constructing switchbacks got hired to build it.
> 
> I like how this map mentions Spring Trail, Wildlife Tree Trail, Walk Through Time, and Forces of Nature. I see they show a rerouted Lower Oldham Trail coming out behind Buffalo Park. About 20 years late. The beauty of releasing these maps of proposed new trails, is it stops a lot of blowback from angry mountain bikers. They believe the promises the FS makes to them, for years, sometimes decades, before they realize they were bamboozled. Anyone can draw lines on a map. But when you discover that nobody really cares to go find funding or make other attempts to see these things through, you see the big picture. You see how rogue builders came to be. What their motivation was/is.
> 
> ...


Yep, no doubt it's not hard to see whey rogue trails get built when the land manager is asleep at the wheel. Not sure they are more engaged in an era of fuel reduction and fire suppression. Recreation is far down the list in terms of priority but not much low hanging fruit to pick and anything around here requires an extensive build. My guess is the S. Elden trail will never be built.

As for the ESA it's extent is bigger than you think and I don't think it's going away or forgotten. http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/1155...i.com/11558/www/nepa/85554_FSPLT3_1460485.pdf
Ask Switch about the Casner Canyon ESA and how Tomahawk and Damifino, arguably the best trails in Sedona, were closed. Anyhow, Danzo is in the ESA but so are other trails. Seems the FS does what they want with "special" study areas.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> I was banned from the NF for a short period of time for doing needed trail maintenance on two system trails. The trails were in better condition after I completed the maintenance. I don't know about the landmanager that is in charge of trail maintenance but the USFS is way behind trail maintenance over the whole country due to a budget shortfall.
> 
> Due to the budget shortfall system trails receive little or no maintenance. Since I am retired and know how to do trail maintenance as well as the land manager I did some maintenance to make two trails safer and more fun to ride.
> 
> ...


So in other words you are advocating for others to do something that you are intimately familiar with the consequences for, such as banishment from NFs, monetary fines, etc. without disclosing that information and most likely still using arguments and justifications that did not pass muster the first time.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

tuckerjt07 said:


> So in other words you are advocating for others to do something that you are intimately familiar with the consequences for, such as banishment from NFs, monetary fines, etc. without disclosing that information and most likely still using arguments and justifications that did not pass muster the first time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It will probably come out in the Tell All book but in reality the FS LEO got him to cop to those two minor offenses (and they are minor) so they didn't have to build a bigger case for the XX # of miles of trail he had built. And they had a case but the main witness was a bit of a nut job that suffered from PTSD and thought Switchblade was after his wife. Really.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> This is the kind of statement from many landmanagers. I don't really believe many many good trail builders believe what tuck has stated. We don't really care that he is miss informed. It pretty easy to prove him wrong.


Please, prove it wrong, without using fallacies or misinformation.

After the exposure of your bona-fides, or lack thereof, I can certainly understand why you are trying to circle back to a failed circular, apples to oranges argument.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> After the exposure of your bona-fides, or lack thereof, I can certainly understand why you are trying to circle back to a failed circular, apples to oranges argument.


I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. Switchback has done more for the mountain biking community than any other person on MTBR. He has forgotten more about trail work than you will ever come to know in the remainder of your life. You are sitting in the peanut gallery, essentially making catcalls down to the players out on the field. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Switchblade. We have given our lives to designing, building, maintaining, and restoring mountain bike trails for the pleasure of all who wish to ride. For someone like you, who has not contributed anything but criticism, we still allow you to ride on trails built by us or people just like us. If you choose to pretend you only ride trails designed and built by government land managers and their staff, go on pretending. But you are making the choice to sit in the cheap seats and bark at skilled and dedicated trail builders, while doing some moral preening. Nobody here is impressed.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> I think you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. Switchback has done more for the mountain biking community than any other person on MTBR. He has forgotten more about trail work than you will ever come to know in the remainder of your life. You are sitting in the peanut gallery, essentially making catcalls down to the players out on the field. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Switchblade. We have given our lives to designing, building, maintaining, and restoring mountain bike trails for the pleasure of all who wish to ride. For someone like you, who has not contributed anything but criticism, we still allow you to ride on trails built by us or people just like us. If you choose to pretend you only ride trails designed and built by government land managers and their staff, go on pretending. But you are making the choice to sit in the cheap seats and bark at skilled and dedicated trail builders, while doing some moral preening. Nobody here is impressed.


No, I'm telling you that you, and his, efforts and attentions need to be refocused. The same tactics and efforts that you were using years ago no longer work, or for the most part, are not even welcome in today's climate. In today's world rogue and illegitimate tactics are much more harmful than beneficial. Legitimacy is what gets you a seat at the table and that is how things are accomplished now. By refusing to acknowledge this and change you are actually harming efforts both past and future.

It's obvious from the frustrations you both express that things are not happening that you would like. It's time to change tactics. Past behaviors have already resulted in a hammer drop from the NFS at least once. At this point you are both doing more harm than good. Making failed, unsubstantiated, wild claims to bolster your illegal activity is just doubling down on that negative perception in the eyes of land managers.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Tuck if you ever come to Sedona please stick to the trails created before 1995. The majority of the rest of the trails are user created. The concepts dreamed up by the local mountain bike community are the most popular mountain bike trails, so please stay off those. I can provide you with a list if you can't find an old pencil drawn map by COSMIC RAY or the map the USFS created in 1998 for some kind of forest Plan Amendment. When I asked Jennifer what the names of the trails were on the penciled map she had no clue.
> 
> From about 2000 to 2015 COSMIC had to create a new trail guide each year to make sure visitors were getting local knowledge of all the cool trails. Otherwise people would just go online and download my comprehensive maps for FREE.
> 
> ...


You can attempt to rationalize it, and strawman me, all you want but it will not change the fact that bad actors, this is people like yourself, in the eyes of those in charge are a hindrance and detrimental. Perhaps once upon a time what you were doing was the correct thing. That time has past. It's time to quit living in the past glory days and change tactics. Look to the future instead of being mired in the past.

Also, I'm still waiting on your proof you promised to provide.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> it's time to quit living in the past glory days


Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Tuck remind me again what I promised you. I guess if you are correct the USFS would be building fifty miles of new Sedona trails and they would be adopting the other 12 miles of user created trails.
> 
> There are a lot of user created trails that have been around for over ten years that are fun to ride. Centennial, Lost and Found, No Name and the Jump trail would make great additions to the Soldiers Wash trails.


Fine, not promise, however you said it would be pretty easy to prove me wrong. So show me just easy it is.

Yes, however what worked 10 years ago isn't going to work today. It probably won't ever work again. It's the end of an era and for some that is unfathomable. Just think, in the scope of humanity's existence it wasn't all that long ago doctors were prescribing cigarettes.

Before you respond to the second, please, by all means, prove me wrong when I say mother nature does not cause more damage to herself in preservation areas than man. I will wait. Being good arguments because they will be dissected thoroughly. The beetles mentioned might be a good place for you to start.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Fine, not promise, however you said it would be pretty easy to prove me wrong. So show me just easy it is.
> 
> Yes, however what worked 10 years ago isn't going to work today. It probably won't ever work again. It's the end of an era and for some that is unfathomable. Just think, in the scope of humanity's existence it wasn't all that long ago doctors were prescribing cigarettes.
> 
> ...


You come off like a real hoser. Many of us with a lifetime of experience know you are full of **** dude. Have some respect...


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Boris Badenov said:


> I stand shoulder to shoulder with Switchblade. We have given our lives to designing, building, maintaining, and restoring mountain bike trails for the pleasure of all who wish to ride.


How the heck did you fit that in with the other 32 careers you've had?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

bsieb said:


> You come off like a real hoser. Many of us with a lifetime of experience know you are full of **** dude. Have some respect...


Have some respect for what? People doing illegal activities? Activities that have had users banned from NFs, monetarily fined, resulted in ham fisted trail closures, etc? I refuse to respect or even tacitly condone that behavior. It's the end of an era. What used to work is no longer the correct path forward. Adapt or become marginalized is the way of the world.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> OK here are some Natural Disasters ( chttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll) created by Mother Nature that did environmental damage. Do you still think user created trails cause more environmental damage than all the listed disasters?


First, your link doesn't work. Second, Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. Third, just giving a list of disasters without claiming how you believe they hurt the environment isn't proof. Try again.

You said this would be pretty easy. You commited several logical fallacies, something you were explicitly asked not to do, in that short post: shifting of the burden of proof, begging the question and a veiled appeal to emotion for starters. Surely in light of that you don't care if you are held to some basic standards.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

This. Thread. Is. Pure. Gold.

Carry. On.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

All these "environmental disasters" are what made, and continues to make this bountiful breadbasket that supports every one of us, without volcano eruptions, fire, flash floods, bark beetles, etc, we wouldn't exist, nor would we have great trails to ride.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

J.B. Weld said:


> All these "environmental disasters" are what made, and continues to make this bountiful breadbasket that supports every one of us, without volcano eruptions, fire, flash floods, bark beetles, etc, we wouldn't exist, nor would we have great trails to ride.


"Environmental disasters" just happen.......much like rogue trail building. Life is beautiful. 🤗


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Group 1
Builders who are p1ssed off because they need to follow the rules in order to get anything done. They realize the rules are probably BS but they've come to accept them, and even live by them, but still they are angry whether they know it or not. Mostly though, they are upset with other "non-conformist" builders. Of course they are upset with local builders who upset the land managers and thus make their life harder. *Oddly however, they seem to be p1ssed at builders who've found a way to circumvent BS rules, don't upset authorities, and still build sustainable trails.

Group 2
Whack jobs who seem to relish the rules and process. They think they own the trails and land. *Certified control freaks.

Group 3
They are either lucky enough to not have rules, or they have them but work around them quietly and are still quite effective at getting sustainable trails built. *But, instead of them just thanking Group 1 for their effort and work with land managers, they keep rattling Group 1's chain.


* eliminate these items and we can all be friends.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Or, groups 1 and 2 could ride, chug a beer, and laugh it off with group 3 because in the end none of this really matters. Trails are getting built either way and there's plenty of great riding available.


----------



## k2rider1964 (Apr 29, 2010)

bsieb said:


> You come off like a real hoser. Many of us with a lifetime of experience know you are full of **** dude. Have some respect...


Hoser.....second time I've heard that time today in the last 20 years. Other reference was on an old Cheers episode. I liken him more to a Massengill product and he is only the 2nd poster ever to make my ignore list.


----------



## indiemtbkr (Jul 9, 2005)

Miker J said:


> Group 1
> Builders who are p1ssed off because they need to follow the rules in order to get anything done. They realize the rules are probably BS but they've come to accept them, and even live by them, but still they are angry whether they know it or not. Mostly though, they are upset with other "non-conformist" builders. Of course they are upset with local builders who upset the land managers and thus make their life harder. *Oddly however, they seem to be p1ssed at builders who've found a way to circumvent BS rules, don't upset authorities, and still build sustainable trails.
> 
> Group 2
> ...


You forgot:

Group 4
Builders who follow the rules because the rules are easy to follow. They don't really care about the non-conformist builders unless they are being idiots and jeopardizing trail access for everyone.

I could be a rogue builder or... I could get paid to build awesome legal trails that won't be at risk of being destroyed or shut down. Tough choice....


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

*The Industrialization of Mountain Bike Trail Development*



indiemtbkr said:


> the rules are easy to follow.





indiemtbkr said:


> jeopardizing trail access for everyone.





indiemtbkr said:


> I could get paid to build awesome legal trails


Interesting.

Let's take the 'Pepsi Challenge' eh?

Name the most popular riding destinations in the world that have attracted mountain bike enthusiasts for over 20 years?

Now, what percentage of the original trails that put those destinations on the map were built by:

A) The local land management agency
B) A professional trail building crew
C) An authorized group or advocacy org
D) Unsanctioned locals a.k.a. 'rogue' builders?

Using the benefit of history, what have the long-term "consequences of unsanctioned trail building" been in those areas?

Unfortunately, due to the youthful nature of our beloved activity/sport we still have a developmental mismatch. The vast majority of folks building sanctioned new trails today are working for/with bureaucratic, hierarchical, organizations of non-mountain bikers, in an industrial way. 
:madman:

It's pretty obvious that sanctioned trail building is the 'right way' to do things. What should be clear from the quality debate in this thread is that 'the right way' isn't working for a lot of people... who the trails are supposedly being built for.

Lets get real. No one dreams about riding boring, predictable, industrial, mass-produced trails! We long for amazing, remarkable, unique trail experiences. Which is why _*the same tactics and efforts that were used years ago *_continue to be used today.

With respect,
CB

PS. I'm curious what the intention of this thread starter was? How does this debate serve for our community? Mountain bikers are far from the only group building/creating unsanctioned trails on public lands. Hello! Are dog walkers and hikers this 'responsible'!?


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Now you are getting somewhere. You agree that trails are human impact. The entire premise of your argument is now flawed. We are discussing trails in locations where human impact is supposed to be kept to a minimum if not altogether banned, ie a nature preserve where it is illegal to enter. So yes, your argument is beyond moronic when you try to use it in that context.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Humans are nature. You need to go for a ride.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

bsieb said:


> You come off like a real hoser. Many of us with a lifetime of experience know you are full of **** dude. Have some respect...


Pretty much nails it. Can you list your most recent rides? Tell us all when you started MTBing and on what trail network? Tell us how many miles of trail, and hours this year you have contributed? Context is needed to understand your "opinions".


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

indiemtbkr said:


> You forgot:
> 
> Group 4
> Builders who follow the rules because the rules are easy to follow. They don't really care about the non-conformist builders unless they are being idiots and jeopardizing trail access for everyone.
> ...


I wish our scene had pros building cool trails. I'd probably still be full time on those projects. The issue seems to be "Lowest Bidder". Cool trail is expensive to build. Mechanization to hit the price point killed creative building here. The pros pretended it was for "Sustainability", in the end it's just walking behind a machine cutting roots and cleaning up back slope on benched trails that offer few real technical challenges.

I'd rather create cool trail for free then get paid to be on a road crew trying to operate in the forest. The last thing I want to do as a trail builder is drive a diesel powered machine all day watching my ass get wider.

I keep waiting for a cool trail to be built by the new order. Instead we get redundant, ambiguous, wildly expensive flow trail and dumbed down versions of the old favorites.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

CANADIANBACON said:


> It's pretty obvious that sanctioned trail building is the 'right way' to do things. What should be clear from the quality debate in this thread is that 'the right way' isn't working for a lot of people... who the trails are supposedly being built for.


Trails being built/marketed/sold 'the right way' simply aren't what many MTB'rs are looking for, especially those of us that have been in the game for decades creating and riding on the regular. Trails built 'the right way' tend to be busy noisier places oftentimes with overflowing trail heads and 20-40 rider pile ups at way too many over signed trail intersections (Kingdom trails).

Where I live I love the fact that I can ride 365 days a year and never see or hear another rider in thousands of acres of land not far from urban sprawl. Rogue provides that quiet low impact trail experience. If I want a social experience then surely I can go to countless areas built/mapped/marketed/sold 'the right way' by my local advocacy group. But only in small doses.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

DaveVt said:


> Humans are nature. You need to go for a ride.





tuckerjt07 said:


> We are discussing trails in locations where human impact is supposed to be kept to a minimum if not altogether banned, ie a nature preserve where it is illegal to enter. So yes, your argument is [flawed] when you try to use it in that context.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It would help if you would address the actual content of the post you quoted.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

CANADIANBACON said:


> PS. I'm curious what the intention of this thread starter was? How does this debate serve for our community? Mountain bikers are far from the only group building/creating unsanctioned trails on public lands. Hello! Are dog walkers and hikers this 'responsible'!?


If you're curious, you could read my OP. It's pretty clear about it.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

indiemtbkr said:


> You forgot:
> 
> Builders who follow the rules because the rules are easy to follow.
> 
> I could be a rogue builder or... I could get paid to build awesome legal trails that won't be at risk of being destroyed or shut down. Tough choice....


It's that simple, is it? Rules are easy to follow? In what world is that? A local government employee who invents the existence of a species in order to stop trail building by anyone and everyone. I can think of two such people in western states that did just that. Another government worker who is lazy and never writes grant proposals to get funding to build trails. Those are a dime a dozen. Less trails to them is less work for them. Another government worker who rides horses and directs all available money to creating horse trails for him and his friends, in places mountain bikes are not interested in riding. Seen a lot of these types. Another government worker who leaves his job in charge of trail building, to go out with the hotshot crews each summer, in order to make additional income he uses to travel during the off season. I know this guy also.

I've sat down with land managers who told me they couldn't figure out a way to connect two trail systems because the land between them was managed by a different government agency, even though I met with that agency and they said they would gladly provide an easement. The first government land manager stated she wanted a permanent right of way and refused the offer. That same land manager told me to quit moving sand in the dry washes, in order to thin it down and allow riders to get through the washes without crashing. She said a government compliance person interpreted a federal law against reroute watersheds as applying to moving sand 18 inches to create a riding lane.

I could probably mention three dozen more incidences where government land managers are failing to serve the public interest. One other favorite is a trail that leads nowhere. A planned community was built next to a land preserve with mountain bike trails in it. The City built these trails and also worked with the home builder to construct feeder trails into the preserve. Several of those feeder trails travel over a mile out into the preserve, up and around small mountains and down through dry washes. The cost of construction was considerable. One particular trail, travels up and around a mountain top and then dead ends, just 500 feet from the crest of another hillside, where an adjoining trail is located. A crew could connect the two trails in a couple days, but the city's position is that they developed the trails almost ten years ago and has no plans to add more trails. Another dead-end trail is just 100 feet from meeting up with an existing trail.

Explain to me why these rules and excuses are so easy to follow.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

So much b*tching and moaning about trails in a world full of gorgeous accessible trails is confusing, it's tough west of the Mississippi but that's just the logistics of things. BB lives in Arizona though, you need to be an angry individual to not be happy about the availability of great trails there.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> A recent USFS project that proposed several significant new trails also includes a travel restriction limiting bicycles to system routes.
> 
> View attachment 1177065
> 
> ...


So you are telling us that the FS is proposing closing down rogue user built trails and building new government approved trails. But then you state that there really weren't many rogue user built trails in your area for them to close down. However, you describe many uninventoried trails that riders were enjoying for years. Who built them? It seems they are seen as wildcat trails, not originally built by land managers. Aren't those the type of trails you no longer approve of? Aren't those trails past their shelf life? Aren't you saying we should no longer celebrate riding those legacy wildcat trails? It seems you are getting everything you desire up there in Montana.

Your opinion is that rogue trail building is past it's shelf life. You are entitled to your opinion. Others here have a very different opinion. We also deserve to have our voices heard. You and others do not want to allow us to speak here. You want MTBR to censor our views. Some of us have a lot of experience working both sides of this issue and have created winning strategies that resulted in far more trail access for everyone. If you are failing to get your seat at the table, maybe we aren't to blame. Maybe you are poor at making your case for more access. Maybe the government agencies are being unreasonable. My experience is you have to have options going into battle. you have to find ways to adapt and to overcome to be succeed in your mission.

Later today I will attend a meeting with a local mountain biking advocacy group. Nest week I will meet with a government land manager. Friday I will go out and monitor a prison work crew doing trail work in a preserve. Two days ago I rode for over 4 hours in one of the largest preserves in the country that has been developed with recreational trails, photographing some trail eradication that concerns me. And in the last two weeks, I have also made time to go out and do trail work. Some approved and some not approved. I grow weary of being told what doesn't work, when I see it clearly does work. Not in the past but today, and tomorrow, and next week.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It's the end of an era. What used to work is no longer the correct path forward.


Yes Tucker, that is one opinion. You have expressed it a few times, but that does not make it fact. This is a broad discussion that covers all of the USA, so keep in mind what might or might not be working where you live may still be working just fine where others live.

Also, not all trails and lands are black and white when it comes to this sort of discussion. There can be many nuances that govern how the land managers work with the communities.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Yes Tucker, that is one opinion. You have expressed it a few times, but that does not make it fact. This is a broad discussion that covers all of the USA, so keep in mind what might or might not be working where you live may still be working just fine where others live.
> 
> Also, not all trails and lands are black and white when it comes to this sort of discussion. There can be many nuances that govern how the land managers work with the communities.


Yes jr, and I have been a part of efforts in similar areas in other access battles. What worked there and is currently working wonderfully is legitimacy. By doing things rogue and under the table you only create headaches for the people in charge. This invariably leads to negative feelings towards a user group. What used to work no longer works in this age of monitoring, environmental regulations, and budgeting. To work with maximum effectiveness there has to be a level of trust and partnership. Breaking the rules is not conducive to that.

Also, I love the fallacy you employed vis a vis opinions. You are correct in stating that opinions are not fact. The part you left out is that despite that one opinion can be correct while other opinions are wrong, not saying every opinion in this thread is wrong but there are some that are completely offbase.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

J.B. Weld said:


> All these "environmental disasters" are what made, and continues to make this bountiful breadbasket that supports every one of us, without volcano eruptions, fire, flash floods, bark beetles, etc, we wouldn't exist, nor would we have great trails to ride.


 Bark beetles, oh, man thats just not right. I'm still pissed at all the glacial erratics, eskers and terminal moraines that I have to deal with. All those rocks, sweet ledges, natural smooth rock formations, hills, and ridges I get to ride and make trails on. What's that web site that deals with those complaints? Pissed I tell you. Reminds me of the great shale vs metamorphic formations debate of 8552 BC.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

DaveVt said:


> I wish our scene had pros building cool trails. I'd probably still be full time on those projects. The issue seems to be "Lowest Bidder". Cool trail is expensive to build. Mechanization to hit the price point killed creative building here. The pros pretended it was for "Sustainability", in the end it's just walking behind a machine cutting roots and cleaning up back slope on benched trails that offer few real technical challenges.
> 
> I'd rather create cool trail for free then get paid to be on a road crew trying to operate in the forest. The last thing I want to do as a trail builder is drive a diesel powered machine all day watching my ass get wider.
> 
> I keep waiting for a cool trail to be built by the new order. Instead we get redundant, ambiguous, wildly expensive flow trail and dumbed down versions of the old favorites.


 It's not all doom and gloom, get out of VT, come down to MA. Not much in the way of mech trail builds where I am in eastern MA. Free? Will you work for lunch, cold brews and ride on some good singletrack? I'll even sharpen a rogue hoe for you.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Noooooooooooo!!!!!!!
> View attachment 1183755


How much you wanna bet Switchblade could build a trail over them mountains?


----------



## indiemtbkr (Jul 9, 2005)

CANADIANBACON said:


> Lets get real. No one dreams about riding boring, predictable, industrial, mass-produced trails! We long for amazing, remarkable, unique trail experiences. Which is why _*the same tactics and efforts that were used years ago *_continue to be used today.


Believe it or not, professionally-built trails can be technical and challenging. They can also be innovative. You can add in rocks or leave roots and rocks. The dumbed down trails are called beginner trails.

I find the boring, predictable trails to be the ones that were built with little flow and little effort was put into building the trail. Everyone has a different idea of the perfect trail but I think trails that require the rider to constantly be in motion and reacting to undulation, turns and technical challenges are more remarkable and fun.

Innovative professionally-built trails are popular for a reason. A smaller percentage of riders will prefer the old-school types of trails where you're less likely to find people. You can still incorporate old-school trails into trail networks. More trail networks and more options isn't a bad thing.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

indiemtbkr said:


> Believe it or not, professionally-built trails can be technical and challenging. They can also be innovative. You can add in rocks or leave roots and rocks. The dumbed down trails are called beginner trails.
> 
> I find the boring, predictable trails to be the ones that were built with little flow and little effort was put into building the trail. Everyone has a different idea of the perfect trail but I think trails that require the rider to constantly be in motion and reacting to undulation, turns and technical challenges are more remarkable and fun.
> 
> Innovative professionally-built trails are popular for a reason. A smaller percentage of riders will prefer the old-school types of trails where you're less likely to find people. You can still incorporate old-school trails into trail networks. More trail networks and more options isn't a bad thing.


 Flow is where you find it, not necessarily with linked smooth berms. All trails flow, sometimes it is up to the rider. All our old school trails are pro built, we just don't get paid for it. Except when we get to ride them.


----------



## TheDwayyo (Dec 2, 2014)

CANADIANBACON said:


> It's pretty obvious that sanctioned trail building is the 'right way' to do things. What should be clear from the quality debate in this thread is that 'the right way' isn't working for a lot of people... who the trails are supposedly being built for.


So those who feel the process is letting them down need to get involved. If you don't like what's being built, get involved and change it. That's exactly what I did in the last nine months or so and I've already seen results. People who previously spent all their time bitching about what the local club does are now cheering on our projects...



DaveVt said:


> Humans are nature. You need to go for a ride.


This argument is far too philosophical to be worth anything in a discussion of MTB trails, but I find the whole concept pretty amusing. If humans are nature then the floating trash island in the Pacific is natural, as is the devastation left behind by Chernobyl... Hell, that would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki natural disasters...

I know the argument can be made, and in many cases I like to remind people that we are 'of nature' rather than something distinct from it, but I think we can all agree it's unproductive to just blanket accept any and all of man's actions as 'natural.'


----------



## indiemtbkr (Jul 9, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> It's that simple, is it? Rules are easy to follow? In what world is that?


My world. Obviously rules are going to be different across the country. It definitely helps to have a land manager who is a mountain biker or is supportive of mountain biking. It may take 2 years or 10 years (or in some cases 100 years) for this to happen. If no one took the effort to meet with land managers and lobby for mountain bikes we wouldn't be better off. If everyone was a rogue builder who didn't want to work land managers, we would have a few cool trails, which may or may not be shut down. Rogue building is a thing of the past in my area (Washington and North Idaho) because we are lucky to have land managers who are easy to work with now and new trail networks are becoming a reality in more and more places.


----------



## indiemtbkr (Jul 9, 2005)

leeboh said:


> Flow is where you find it, not necessarily with linked smooth berms. All trails flow, sometimes it is up to the rider. All our old school trails are pro built, we just don't get paid for it. Except when we get to ride them.


I didn't mention berms because some people don't like berms. You can have flow without berms but you can also have trails with bad flow. I have ridden plenty of them, haha.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

indiemtbkr said:


> My world. Obviously rules are going to be different across the country. It definitely helps to have a land manager who is a mountain biker or is supportive of mountain biking. It may take 2 years or 10 years (or in some cases 100 years) for this to happen. If no one took the effort to meet with land managers and lobby for mountain bikes we wouldn't be better off. If everyone was a rogue builder who didn't want to work land managers, we would have a few cool trails, which may or may not be shut down. Rogue building is a thing of the past in my area (Washington and North Idaho) because we are lucky to have land managers who are easy to work with now and new trail networks are becoming a reality in more and more places.


Agreed^^^. Ultimately isn't this the issue? Having the right people in the right places makes all the difference in the world. If the land manager is engaged then advocacy works. If not, unsanctioned trail building is the norm. But it's 2018 and not 1997. Obviously from the passionate opinions in this thread it still works in places but in other places it's going to increasingly backfire. It will be interesting to revisit this thread a decade from now in 2028 and see where we are wrt land access and trails.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

*The consequences of sanctioned trail builder going rogue and doing non-sanctioned trail eradication.*

I have been enjoying rides in a couple local mountain preserves lately. One is likely the largest (16,000+ acres) in the country that has been developed for recreational use. It was a perfect storm of land being located in an area where the wealthiest people in the state live. They agreed to tax themselves in order for the city of Scottsdale to buy and preserve a lot of land. Then they hired professional trail builders to create multi-use trails and also mountain biking race loops. Recently, they spent $34 million to acquire more land and are gradually creating new trails in that area, to add to the many miles of existing trails. It has become the go-to winter riding destination in the U.S.

But there is more to the story. There is Forest Service land next to the preserve and there is State Trust Land next to the preserve, and there are wealthy people living in gated communities next to the preserve. I've spent the last couple years riding legacy trails that were created decades ago by motorized users. I've been linking many of those trails that were outside the boundary of the preserve with trails inside the preserve. With the recent land purchase, most of my route is now within the preserve boundary. On Sunday, I spent over 4 hours attempting to ride a route I enjoy the most, but several trails were destroyed by an excavator. I was told previously that the City had paid their builder to go outside the preserve boundary and begin plowing up existing trails that lead into the preserve. This placed the trail builder on State Lands where he was not allowed. He also got a bit over-zealous and plowed up additional trails at random that were not feeder trails into the preserve, but connector trails to where the wealthy homeowners live. Those wealthy homeowners were well represented on the planning committee and apparently asked for and received some favors from the City of Scottsdale.

I still enjoyed my ride. In fact, I was so determined to explore the area that I ended up discovering a couple dozen new trails I had never seen before. And yes, they were rogue trails. But I also spotted some new flagging that marks where some sanctioned new trails will be built. I tried to convince the preserve staff to save many of the old Moto trails that required more skill to ride than most of the trails they have been building the last couple years. It appears they are going to save some of them.

I'm posting some pictures I took during the ride. I may never know the reasoning behind sending a trail builder out onto land outside the preserve to destroy trails. It seemed like similar strategy rogue trail builders use to create new trails. Don't tell people too much in advance and pretend you are doing something good for everyone.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

There is no denying that many of the finest trails started out as rogue trails. Comfortably Numb, Upper Porcupine Singletrack, Hangover, Gooseberry Mesa, Ladies Only, Paper Bag-classic trails that Park City or Kingdom Trails could not even comprehend. In fact, it seems that most of the greatest works of art were made by individuals, not committees. That being said, I would think there has to be a point at which even the most prolific builder will agree that there has to be a limit to rogue building. Hacksaw, what if someone showed up and built a wide falline jump trail right next to one of your trails? I bet you would be pissed, and tear it down, perhaps starting a feud with another builder. Switchblade or Boris, what if rogue builders continued to build more trails in Sedona? Would you support them or would you say only cool old guys like Ramajon should be allowed to build? As rogue builders yourselves, do you feel it should be a complete free for all and all building by anyone should be allowed? If not, where would you draw the line and how would you go about regulating rogue building, if at all?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> So you are telling us that the FS is proposing closing down rogue user built trails and building new government approved trails. But then you state that there really weren't many rogue user built trails in your area for them to close down. However, you describe many uninventoried trails that riders were enjoying for years. Who built them? It seems they are seen as wildcat trails, not originally built by land managers. Aren't those the type of trails you no longer approve of? Aren't those trails past their shelf life? Aren't you saying we should no longer celebrate riding those legacy wildcat trails? It seems you are getting everything you desire up there in Montana.
> 
> Your opinion is that rogue trail building is past it's shelf life. You are entitled to your opinion. Others here have a very different opinion. We also deserve to have our voices heard. You and others do not want to allow us to speak here. You want MTBR to censor our views. Some of us have a lot of experience working both sides of this issue and have created winning strategies that resulted in far more trail access for everyone. If you are failing to get your seat at the table, maybe we aren't to blame. Maybe you are poor at making your case for more access. Maybe the government agencies are being unreasonable. My experience is you have to have options going into battle. you have to find ways to adapt and to overcome to be succeed in your mission.
> 
> Later today I will attend a meeting with a local mountain biking advocacy group. Nest week I will meet with a government land manager. Friday I will go out and monitor a prison work crew doing trail work in a preserve. Two days ago I rode for over 4 hours in one of the largest preserves in the country that has been developed with recreational trails, photographing some trail eradication that concerns me. And in the last two weeks, I have also made time to go out and do trail work. Some approved and some not approved. I grow weary of being told what doesn't work, when I see it clearly does work. Not in the past but today, and tomorrow, and next week.


When I mentioned that there is very little rogue construction here, it was in the context of trails built by mountain bikers specifically for riding, or what Switchblade2 would call "a great user experience." That's pretty clear by the linkage between the sentences. I only know of a few examples of this happening here. I argue that there are far more miles of user-created trails attributable to other users: adjacent landowners with their own 'private' spurs, for example.

But the perception that mountain bikers build our own trails everywhere we go cost us the freedom to ride on the many uninventoried trails in the hills here. There are a lot of histories behind them. Some are old flumes, some are old road beds, some are game trails, some are even CCC trails that weren't inventoried for some reason or other, and some are trails burned in by hunters on foot or horseback. Some are just trails that have been there for decades, predating NEPA and travel planning rules. I don't disapprove of them at all - I ride them, and I had the right to do so. Cross-country travel by bike was allowed. Introducing that restriction on cross country travel takes those trails away and dramatically cuts the backcountry mileage available to us.

The restriction is in response to local wildlife advocates in Montana pointing to well-publicized events in Sedona and insisting that mountain bikers can't be trusted with access to public lands. So in exchange for approving a major high-country trail that's been twisting in the wind for years, they address the wildlife groups' concerns with a travel restriction.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

bpressnall said:


> Switchblade or Boris, what if rogue builders continued to build more trails in Sedona? As rogue builders yourselves, do you feel it should be a complete free for all and all building by anyone should be allowed? If not, where would you draw the line and how would you go about regulating rogue building, if at all?


Rockman said it best. The low hanging fruit is mostly gone. Times have changed. Risk vs. reward has tilted towards those with video cameras. Also, my back hurts. I had to call off todays rogue trail work.

My advice to rogue designers and builders is, well, I wrote an entire post offering advice, it got deleted on second thoughts. It was a how-to tutorial. When and where and how to get in and out quickly, and also when to walk away.

I've recently discussed new rogue trails with others. I walked a 3 mile corridor last week with a friend who offered some advice to me. I've been offered access to motorcycles to do a rapid cut-in, which would be followed by maybe a year of riding it and doing brush work, before making it available to others. But I don't have the motivation I once had, and more importantly, I have a lot of great system trails close by I enjoy riding.

So, for the most part, there are no easy wars to win, just small battles or skirmishes. A few 5--75 foot reroutes, a needed connector trail that cuts through a wash, cleaning up a race course, building pinch points to block trail access from ATV's, brush work to remove blind corners, reroutes around trail closures. These are the loose ends I see people out doing these days. Things the land managers really should be taking care of but haven't.

There is no way you will ever regulate rogue builders. They are lone wolves. I don't agree with hauling lumber out into the woods to build structures, but I don't have their skill set, and I won't see their work because I avoid their highly technical trails.

One day there may be a government shut-down. Not one of these temporary ones, but one resulting from a full-on melt-down of the economy. Those non-essential Forest Service workers, along with many essential government workers, may end up permanently furloughed. Thunderdome. Then we'll see who rises to the top of the food chain.

There will never be too many mountain bike trails.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

leeboh said:


> It's not all doom and gloom, get out of VT, come down to MA. Not much in the way of mech trail builds where I am in eastern MA. Free? Will you work for lunch, cold brews and ride on some good singletrack? I'll even sharpen a rogue hoe for you.


I love my local...and it's basically all I ride. Funny to watch what goes on around us.


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

TheDwayyo said:


> So those who feel the process is letting them down need to get involved. If you don't like what's being built, get involved and change it. That's exactly what I did in the last nine months or so and I've already seen results. People who previously spent all their time bitching about what the local club does are now cheering on our projects...
> 
> This argument is far too philosophical to be worth anything in a discussion of MTB trails, but I find the whole concept pretty amusing. If humans are nature then the floating trash island in the Pacific is natural, as is the devastation left behind by Chernobyl... Hell, that would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki natural disasters...
> 
> I know the argument can be made, and in many cases I like to remind people that we are 'of nature' rather than something distinct from it, but I think we can all agree it's unproductive to just blanket accept any and all of man's actions as 'natural.'


Read a little farther up. I said until we start moving a lot of dirt, using power equipment or poison like the two idiots in question. Primitive human trails are game trails essentially.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> But the perception that mountain bikers build our own trails everywhere we go cost us the freedom to ride on the many uninventoried trails in the hills here.
> 
> The restriction is in response to local wildlife advocates in Montana pointing to well-publicized events in Sedona and insisting that mountain bikers can't be trusted with access to public lands. So in exchange for approving a major high-country trail that's been twisting in the wind for years, they address the wildlife groups' concerns with a travel restriction.


What specifically did wildlife advocates say to land managers about Sedona, that caused land managers to close off access to trails? Rather, to cause land managers to propose closing off access to trails. It seems nothing has been done just yet.

Why would wildlife advocates want those old trails closed to them, or are they only closed to bikers? What exactly is a wildlife advocate? You don't seem to be talking about hunters. They would welcome more trails, no matter who builds them.

I've seen and been part of these "exchanges" in the past. The FS said they would develop trails in an area, like your high-country trail, if riders agreed to stop building rogue trails and agreed to close down some rogue trails. The strategy, and it wasn't mine, but I certainly agreed with it, was to go along with what the FS asked of us. Then, once the new trails were built, all sorts of other trails began being built. Some by motorcycles, some by mountain bikers. Lot's of them. That was over ten years ago and they are all still there, being used by all.

It takes time and effort and money to close trails. Most land managers don't have the time or the money, and usually lack the motivation to close trails. They also don't have much in the way of law enforcement. They are stretched thin and don't like doing work that involves getting out of their trucks and hiking.

Have you ever heard of zero tolerance traffic enforcement for speeding? Me either, because nobody obeys the speed limit signs. So law enforcement resigns themselves to just going after "high-rollers", while ignoring everyone driving 5-10mph over the posted limits.

Ask someone who has injured themselves out in the woods, and had to call for help and extraction. 911 operator asks them where they are and dispatches help. Only the help has no idea where they are or how to get to them. We have a home that backs to the forest. If I call 911 and say a gunman is at our door, police will be there inside 3 minutes. If my wife goes for a walk in the woods and is confronted by someone wanting to assault her, and she can call 911 and tell them she is only 300 yards southwest of our home, out in the woods, it could take an hour or more for help to arrive. They don't have maps or familiarity with the trails.

But the best advice I can give you is look for work in another state, near really good year-round riding trails. Why on earth would anyone want to live in Helena, Montana if they want to mountain bike. Unless you snow mobile or ski, it makes no sense. Each time my wife and I have moved ( Sacramento-Boise-Flagstaff-Phoenix), it has been to extend our riding season and access to more and better quality trails. If you love riding enough, you'll find a way to make a living where the riding is not under thread from wildlife advocates and weak land managers who cave to them.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I'm being charitable by calling them wildlife advocates. They aren't; they're really hunting advocates. And despite the subsistence component, hunting is recreation. They're opposed to anything that puts more people in the woods, except for themselves. Backcountry hunters absolutely do not want more trails; they don't even want more hikers. Their recurring complaint is that bike travel disrupts and impacts elk herds by generating flight responses. It's obvious to anyone who has visited Yellowstone that elk aren't bothered by human traffic; they're impacted by people shooting them. Without hunting they don't associate humans with a threat. But there's a lot of wildlife biologists willing to claim that recreational travel is a problem for elk management. And the Forest is limited in their options, because the existing forest plan emphasizes wildlife management.

In USFS lingo, cross-country travel means travel anywhere, on or off-trail. That means that hikers can use nonsystem trails because they can go anywhere they want. I doubt the USFS would actually attempt to close any of them, but they'll probably attempt some degree of enforcement. And the backcountry hunters are already talking about a game camera program. 

Meh. There's a vibrant MTB community here, incorporating a much greater percentage of the population than you get in a lot of places. People choose small mountain towns for a reason; if you don't get it, fair enough. I'm not trying to sell it. I like to ski, XC ski, and fatbike. Most seasons we're riding dirt in March; some years even sooner. And I like going for afternoon rides in July.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

evasive said:


> I'm being charitable by calling them wildlife advocates. They aren't; they're really hunting advocates. And despite the subsistence component, hunting is recreation. They're opposed to anything that puts more people in the woods, except for themselves. Backcountry hunters absolutely do not want more trails; they don't even want more hikers. Their recurring complaint is that bike travel disrupts and impacts elk herds by generating flight responses. It's obvious to anyone who has visited Yellowstone that elk aren't bothered by human traffic; they're impacted by people shooting them. Without hunting they don't associate humans with a threat. But there's a lot of wildlife biologists willing to claim that recreational travel is a problem for elk management. And the Forest is limited in their options, because the existing forest plan emphasizes wildlife management.
> 
> In USFS lingo, cross-country travel means travel anywhere, on or off-trail. That means that hikers can use nonsystem trails because they can go anywhere they want. I doubt the USFS would actually attempt to close any of them, but they'll probably attempt some degree of enforcement. And the backcountry hunters are already talking about a game camera program.
> 
> Meh. There's a vibrant MTB community here, incorporating a much greater percentage of the population than you get in a lot of places. People choose small mountain towns for a reason; if you don't get it, fair enough. I'm not trying to sell it. I like to ski, XC ski, and fatbike. Most seasons we're riding dirt in March; some years even sooner. And I like going for afternoon rides in July.


That's not entirely accurate concerning the elk. Places like Yellowstone, or even here in Arkansas, where elk encounter people in large numbers they become acclimated. In a true wildness or backcountry setting it will invoke a flight response. It works that way in almost any prey animal. The first response to an unknown is flight.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

twd953 said:


> How much you wanna bet Switchblade could build a trail over them mountains?


Ha! Good game!!!


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> There's a vibrant MTB community here, incorporating a much greater percentage of the population than you get in a lot of places. People choose small mountain towns for a reason; if you don't get it, fair enough. I'm not trying to sell it. I like to ski, XC ski, and fatbike. Most seasons we're riding dirt in March; some years even sooner. And I like going for afternoon rides in July.


Is it really -6 degrees up there right now?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=temperature+in+helena%2C+montana&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=4d827ee522744597a936ff836ed362fe&sp=-1&pq=temperature+in+helena%2C+montana&sc=3-30&qs=n&sk=&cvid=4d827ee522744597a936ff836ed362fe

I rode through there when I was supporting my wife on the Great divide Trail. I have nothing against mountain towns, as we lived in flagstaff for 18 years, but we had Sedona 30 miles away, so we could ride during the winter.

I still ride in July. At 5am when we are in Phoenix, and any time of the day, when we stay in Flagstaff. We had something close to 60 straight days around 70 degrees here in Phoenix since Thanksgiving. Still over 3 months of good riding weather before we have to ride early in the day. But hunters have no juice around here with land managers. Over a dozen different riding locations around the city. More than a 1000 miles of trails.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

60 straight days of 70 sounds like heaven as I age. Gonna be 70 here in Maine tomorrow. But just for one day😔


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

indiemtbkr said:


> You forgot:
> 
> Group 4
> Builders who follow the rules because the rules are easy to follow. They don't really care about the non-conformist builders unless they are being idiots and jeopardizing trail access for everyone.
> ...


Agree. The list was not all inclusive. It just applied to those passionately posting here.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> Is it really -6 degrees up there right now?
> 
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=temperature+in+helena%2C+montana&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=4d827ee522744597a936ff836ed362fe&sp=-1&pq=temperature+in+helena%2C+montana&sc=3-30&qs=n&sk=&cvid=4d827ee522744597a936ff836ed362fe
> 
> ...


This morning it was. Right now it's 8 and sunny. It's almost always sunny here. I've lived in maritime climates and in the Midwest. Low humidity cold temperatures are pretty tolerable, and it never stays really cold for long.

The draft of the new forest plan proposes a special recreation district around Helena that would allow management decisions to place equal weight on recreation concerns as on wildlife, fire, hydrology, etc. We're hopeful, but there are stakeholders who don't like that, obviously.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

bpressnall said:


> There is no denying that many of the finest trails started out as rogue trails. Comfortably Numb, Upper Porcupine Singletrack, Hangover, Gooseberry Mesa, Ladies Only, Paper Bag-classic trails that Park City or Kingdom Trails could not even comprehend. In fact, it seems that most of the greatest works of art were made by individuals, not committees. That being said, I would think there has to be a point at which even the most prolific builder will agree that there has to be a limit to rogue building. Hacksaw, what if someone showed up and built a wide falline jump trail right next to one of your trails? I bet you would be pissed, and tear it down, perhaps starting a feud with another builder. Switchblade or Boris, what if rogue builders continued to build more trails in Sedona? Would you support them or would you say only cool old guys like Ramajon should be allowed to build? As rogue builders yourselves, do you feel it should be a complete free for all and all building by anyone should be allowed? If not, where would you draw the line and how would you go about regulating rogue building, if at all?


They wouldn't.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Bpress I thought about your question today while out on another outstanding ride on our once user created trail system now adopted.
> 
> As I have mentioned previously the USFS is proposing to build nineteen miles of new trail and adopt 8 miles of existing user created trail starting sometime in June. The cost is estimated at $350,000.
> 
> ...


The consequences of unsanctioned trail building. Just say'n.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman once again you are 100% correct. I would say the PROCESS is moving slowly forward rather than with lightening speed. Maybe I am too old to maintain 36 miles of user created trail by myself.
> 
> It is frustrating seeing small sections of trail eroding that could easily be fixed with a strategically place water diverter or out- sloping. Also the type of vegetation trimming I got cited for only takes several minutes when your ALREADY on location because you are out on a ride anyway.
> 
> If you don't believe that is possible just ask Boris. He has had some experience with what I am suggesting. I would imagine he gets as much satisfaction from necessary trail maintenance as he does riding his bike, but I could be wrong. I would be willing to bet $100 I am correct.


I'm almost 100% positive his post wasn't implying that rogue trails have created too many trails to keep up. It was more along the lines of A. rogue building has left a sour taste and a desire to not work with the mtb community and B. that with a history of rogue trail building it will be hard, if not impossible, to be taken seriously and to be trusted to not fall back into old habits.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman once again you are 100% correct. I would say the PROCESS is moving slowly forward rather than with lightening speed. Maybe I am too old to maintain 36 miles of user created trail by myself.
> 
> It is frustrating seeing small sections of trail eroding that could easily be fixed with a strategically place water diverter or out- sloping. Also the type of vegetation trimming I got cited for only takes several minutes when your ALREADY on location because you are out on a ride anyway.
> 
> If you don't believe that is possible just ask Boris. He has had some experience with what I am suggesting. I would imagine he gets as much satisfaction from necessary trail maintenance as he does riding his bike, but I could be wrong. I would be willing to bet $100 I am correct.


The PROCESS is that they will never let you legally touch trail again. That's the point. I don't disagree that maintenance is needed or that guys like you, with individual volunteer agreements, would just knock it out as needed. But unfortunately that horse has left the barn.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Switchblade2 said:


> It is frustrating seeing small sections of trail eroding that could easily be fixed with a strategically place water diverter or out- sloping. Also the type of vegetation trimming I got cited for only takes several minutes when your ALREADY on location because you are out on a ride anyway.
> 
> If you don't believe that is possible just ask Boris. He has had some experience with what I am suggesting. I would imagine he gets as much satisfaction from necessary trail maintenance as he does riding his bike, but I could be wrong. I would be willing to bet $100 I am correct.


Yes, it is frustrating.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

The wolf sounds like a jerk


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

$350,000 for 19 miles of trail? Where is that waste of money coming from? I know of a trail built in relatively difficult terrain that is about four miles long and cost no more than $200, mainly for chainsaw supplies and vehicle expenses, at least that's what I heard from a reputable source. 

Back to my original question- do you guys that promote rogue building believe that anyone should be able to go out and build a trail wherever they want, or do you think there should be some sort of enforcement from land managers or perhaps from peer pressure to regulate trail building, particularly if it is poorly designed or may jeopardize relations with land managers? Perhaps it's an unfair question because one may sound like a hypocrite if they answer truthfully, but I think it's a valid question. I would guess that Hacksaw is unconcerned about it, because he just builds secret trails for himself and is probably not concerned about what goes on elsewhere, but you guys in Sedona and Phoenix are in heavily populated areas where a lot of building takes place. Perhaps what Boris alluded to that in an anarchistic society, everything would shake out after the government was removed from the equation- at least that's my take. I'm thinking most rogue builders are either anarchists or libertarians.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Yes. I am unconcerned about it. I do give major props to my local advocacy groups and have lent a hand, gladly paid for membership on and off over the years. Anyone who is putting in the work to have trails legally built and going thru the proper channels deserved major kudos. 

The amount of rogue trail being built out here and worked on is pretty astounding. Many guys/crews are doing it. No drama that I know of has come of it. Everyone has their zones. Spring cleanup is gonna be a b1tch with the crazy weather we've had!!!


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

bpressnall said:


> $350,000 for 19 miles of trail? Where is that waste of money coming from? I know of a trail built in relatively difficult terrain that is about four miles long and cost no more than $200, mainly for chainsaw supplies and vehicle expenses, at least that's what I heard from a reputable source.


That does seem steep but in all fairness it does include a trailhead with a paved parking lot and vault toilets. Their plan is to build with a combination of volunteer events, FS trail crew, and contract crews.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

HacksawReynolds said:


> Yes. I am unconcerned about it. I do give major props to my local advocacy groups and have lent a hand, gladly paid for membership on and off over the years. Anyone who is putting in the work to have trails legally built and going thru the proper channels deserved major kudos.
> 
> The amount of rogue trail being built out here and worked on is pretty astounding. Many guys/crews are doing it. No drama that I know of has come of it. Everyone has their zones. Spring cleanup is gonna be a b1tch with the crazy weather we've had!!!


 I know you do rake and ride. Familiar with what is called a forest service rake? Way cool. Perfect for all the winter leaves, sticks and chunk stuff on the trail. Ben Meadows is where I found mine. 20" or so wide, stiff steel tines, like 1/8 inch thick or so. Fall here in MA saw SO much branches and tree crap everywhere.


----------



## endo_alley (May 28, 2013)

bpressnall said:


> $350,000 for 19 miles of trail? Where is that waste of money coming from?


$340,000 for NEPA study and Lawyer fees. $10.000 to do the work.


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Rockman now I am really confused. What I heard was it was $250,000 for the PIT TOILETS and paved parking and $350,000 for the trail building and NEPA. I got that information originally from a pretty good source who has a direct source to the head money person.
> 
> This is the official flyer (note the dark green box) for the project that I have been seeing around town. When I first looked at Plumber Phil's pipe dream reroute of Girdner five years ago, I thought that project would be over $200,000 by it self.


You are correct. The $600k includes $350k for the trail system and $250k for initial trailhead expansion/development. The TH will be designed for around 60 parking spaces, 4 horse trailers, and a hike/bike shuttle stop. I suspect the NEPA has already been paid for so this is just for trail construction and the TH. Seems like a lot of money doesn't it? Is that what you envisioned years ago when you were posting your maps of the secret handshake trails on social media and trying to make Sedona a destination? Because it certainly is. It's a hikers paradise now with all the trailheads and easy access. Careful for what you wish for.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

So, obviously your opinion has evolved over the years. So has mine. In the area I am most familiar with, there are the builders that have kept a low profile, and now there are trail advocates basically working as a go between with the land managers to legitimize some trails. It is all working out well with no real drama. The land managers have even required loggers to clean off some non-legit trails after logging, which I thought was a nice gesture. There have been some concerns with rogue builders building gap jumps on and over an existing trail that we were afraid might attract negative attention, so some jumps and fall line shortcuts were torn down. There have been a few cheater lines on tech trails that have been covered up, but for the most part that is not a big problem because there are plenty of easier trails for the lesser skilled. Here's a little sample of one of the earlier tech trails- minimalist build, low impact and can be tied into a 6500' vertical descent:


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

leeboh said:


> I know you do rake and ride. Familiar with what is called a forest service rake? Way cool. Perfect for all the winter leaves, sticks and chunk stuff on the trail. Ben Meadows is where I found mine. 20" or so wide, stiff steel tines, like 1/8 inch thick or so. Fall here in MA saw SO much branches and tree crap everywhere.


I don't use a rake at all these days and haven't for years. I carry a small folding saw and that it for trail clearing tools. Minimally clear the corridor than ride the trail in. Quick, easy and rides into a perfect low impact tread. I never remove leaves in the fall either. Newly fallen leaves create new organic matter and pad the tread during wet season/spells. If you remove the duff and continually remove leaf/debris fall then yer gonna deal with mud situations like you're experiencing now. No mud in my world.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

rockman said:


> The $600k includes $350k for the trail system and $250k for initial trailhead expansion/development. The TH will be designed for around 60 parking spaces, 4 horse trailers, and a hike/bike shuttle stop. Is that what you envisioned years ago when you were posting your maps of the secret handshake trails on social media and trying to make Sedona a destination? Because it certainly is. It's a hikers paradise now with all the trailheads and easy access. Careful for what you wish for.


So true. I took my nephew up to Sedona a couple weeks ago and decided to hike Soldiers Pass to the Seven Sacred Pools. When we drove to the trailhead, the lot was full and vehicles were parked up and down the nearby streets. Almost all of them had parking tickets on them. I asked a Sedona police officer sitting in his cruiser where we could legally park and he had us drive back to the dog park about a mile away. He said they recently resigned all the residential streets, making parking illegal.









There is a mountain bike advocacy group in Phoenix that has worked to get a new trailhead built along the Carefree highway, on the border of Phoenix and Cave Creek. The new Gateway Trailhead will join the Phoenix Sonoran Preserve trails and the Cave Creek Trails to the north. The City of Cave Creek liked the idea so much that it is throwing an additional $275k more into the build, to make it extra special. Here is where the law of unintended consequences enters the picture. Two years from now, this model trailhead will be complete and what mountain bikers will then discover is that the trailhead has become the premier destination for equestrian riders. They won't have to pay entrance fees at Cave Creek Regional Park and they can access both Cave Creek trails and Phoenix Sonoran Preserve trails. We can expect to see signs telling bikers to dismount their bikes when traveling through the area, and not frightening the horses, and we will see and smell considerable amounts of horse urine and manure. Then there will be the damage to the trails that are particularly sensitive to wet weather, and do not drain quickly. Ultimately, we can thank a mountain bike advocacy group for the conflicts that are sure to come, as well as tails turned into post-holes and powder.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> OK here are some Natural Disasters ( chttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll) created by Mother Nature that did environmental damage. Do you still think user created trails cause more environmental damage than all the listed disasters?





tuckerjt07 said:


> First, your link doesn't work. Second, Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source. Third, just giving a list of disasters without claiming how you believe they hurt the environment isn't proof. Try again.
> 
> You said this would be pretty easy. You commited several logical fallacies, something you were explicitly asked not to do, in that short post: shifting of the burden of proof, begging the question and a veiled appeal to emotion for starters. Surely in light of that you don't care if you are held to some basic standards.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Still waiting...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

I have plenty of sanctioned building to do up in the Zuni Mountains near Gallup, NM. Some real sweet routes. Good camp cooking and a place to sleep. Just saying...


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Still waiting...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Of course you are.....?


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Yes jr, and I have been a part of efforts in similar areas in other access battles. What worked there and is currently working wonderfully is legitimacy. By doing things rogue and under the table you only create headaches for the people in charge. This invariably leads to negative feelings towards a user group. What used to work no longer works in this age of monitoring, environmental regulations, and budgeting. To work with maximum effectiveness there has to be a level of trust and partnership. Breaking the rules is not conducive to that.
> 
> Also, I love the fallacy you employed vis a vis opinions. You are correct in stating that opinions are not fact. The part you left out is that despite that one opinion can be correct while other opinions are wrong, not saying every opinion in this thread is wrong but there are some that are completely offbase.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I stand by my statement, this is not a Black and White issue. And it can vary from place to place.

There is a nature preserve near my home that I ride in every week, the land ownership is broken up between the State, the city and a water Authority as well as some of it being private land used for farming. There are trails in that area that date back to when it was all private land, some of it a rock quarry, some of it farm land. "technically" the land now managed by the state is off-limits to ALL access. It is not really enforced, so it is regularly used for Horseback riding, Trail Running, Dog Walking and Bike riding. It is very difficult to tell where the legal trails end and the illegal ones begin, so a new user could not be blamed for accessing the area.

A few new trails were built in the last few years, but it is mostly very old trails dating back to longer than state ownership. The state has recently taken out the big gap jumps and some of the berms of one of the newer trails, but I know for a fact in a few months those trails will be rebuilt by the same guys who built them in the first place.

This process has repeated off and on for the last 10 years I have lived next to this area and ridden it the entire time.

Will I stop riding it? No.

Will I build NEW trails there? No.

Will I maintain existing trails so they do not erode and cause ruts and such? Yes.

Currently the SDMBA is in talks with the City and the State to get some of the trails recognized to be official trails so they can help organize maintenance days, etc.

So this is not black and white, rogue trails ARE currently being considered for legitimacy in this particular case.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> I stand by my statement, this is not a Black and White issue. And it can vary from place to place.
> 
> There is a nature preserve near my home that I ride in every week, the land ownership is broken up between the State, the city and a water Authority as well as some of it being private land used for farming. There are trails in that area that date back to when it was all private land, some of it a rock quarry, some of it farm land. "technically" the land now managed by the state is off-limits to ALL access. It is not really enforced, so it is regularly used for Horseback riding, Trail Running, Dog Walking and Bike riding. It is very difficult to tell where the legal trails end and the illegal ones begin, so a new user could not be blamed for accessing the area.
> 
> ...


You've missed the entire essence of the issue then. Read the original post and the OP's follow up. It's not about will rogue trails be adopted. It's not about should rogue trails be maintained illegally. It's not about single place. It's about a perception as a whole. Both micro and macro. This isn't the first time, even specifically in regards to mountain biking, I've seen/heard of this happening. An issue from thousands of miles away, rogue trail building, which is easy to sell as irresponsible land use, is a common scapegoat that is used as a blackball mechanism in communities that have never had that issue. Despite what we would all like to think, when we post and/or encourage, even tacitly, illegal activities there absolutely is a butterfly flapping its wings in China effect. No, not all rogue trail building is illegal, but it's very easy to portray it in that manner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> It's about a perception as a whole. Both micro and macro.


The perception is quite clear, in some places rogue building leads to guys getting arrested, in other places it leads to adopted trails into a legal trail system.

There is no easy answer, and there is no one right answer.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> The perception is quite clear, in some places rogue building leads to guys getting arrested, in other places it leads to adopted trails into a legal trail system.
> 
> There is no easy answer, and there is no one right answer.


In a small world micro view where you do not care how actions resonate outside your local community, yes you are correct.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> In a small world micro view where you do not care how actions resonate outside your local community, yes you are correct.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You are also presenting a small world micro view of your own experiences. You cannot honestly say that you know for a fact it only works the "one way" you see it in every single trail system across the 50 states.

In San Diego I have seen it work both ways, legal trails built via committee and land management approval, and rogue trails adopted in.

I don't think you are getting the point that your opinion is ALSO a Micro view.


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Tuck. Go away.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> The perception is quite clear, in some places rogue building leads to guys getting arrested, in other places it leads to adopted trails into a legal trail system.
> 
> There is no easy answer, and there is no one right answer.


Let's look at through this lens. I'll play the part of the person against new mountain bike trails.

Look what happened in <where ever you are from>. Bikers went into a <insert proper name for state wildlife agency> managed zone illegally. They built countless trails in this sensitive area and this has resulted in who knows how much traffic. There have even been public incidents of people being ticketed for being there illegally and that has not been a deterrent. Trails have been torn down by the managing agency and they simply rebuild them. It got so bad that the local agencies had to give in and adopt some of them just to maintain a semblance of control.

I understand <insert club here>says there will be limited trails and that they are responsible land users. However, through places like here, Sedona, etc. we can see that this isn't always the case. Those show it is quite likely that by giving bikers a foothold here that we are ripe to see this type of blatant disregard from the inevitable bad actors.

----

Is that a fair argument, no. Is it logically sound, no. Does it paint a damaging picture and evoke negative emotions, yes. Are parts of it true, absolutely and that is why it is so compelling.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Klurejr said:


> The perception is quite clear, in some places rogue building leads to guys getting arrested, in other places it leads to adopted trails into a legal trail system.


And in other places, trails start out rogue and stay rogue for ever. And have been enjoyed for years/decades.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> You are also presenting a small world micro view of your own experiences. You cannot honestly say that you know for a fact it only works the "one way" you see it in every single trail system across the 50 states.
> 
> In San Diego I have seen it work both ways, legal trails built via committee and land management approval, and rogue trails adopted in.
> 
> I don't think you are getting the point that your opinion is ALSO a Micro view.


No, I'm not focused on a micro area. Read my second response to your previous post. When things are done guerilla style, even if they result in a local victory, they can, and will be if made public, used as ammunition to do more damage at a larger scale.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

HacksawReynolds said:


> And in other places, trails start out rogue and stay rogue for ever. And have been enjoyed for years/decades.


Your area is completely different than out west and you know this. My issue isn't with you building your trails. No one where you are will make any noise about it. My issue is with you publicizing it and encouraging others. That encouragement to bull headed and less responsible individuals leads to events like we've seen in this thread where not only are they impacted personally but others both in and outside their communities are impacted by their actions.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## HacksawReynolds (Dec 1, 2017)

Do you have scientific data to back that up?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> I stand by my statement, this is not a Black and White issue. And it can vary from place to place.
> 
> There is a nature preserve near my home that I ride in every week, the land ownership is broken up between the State, the city and a water Authority as well as some of it being private land used for farming. There are trails in that area that date back to when it was all private land, some of it a rock quarry, some of it farm land. "technically" the land now managed by the state is off-limits to ALL access. It is not really enforced, so it is regularly used for Horseback riding, Trail Running, Dog Walking and Bike riding. It is very difficult to tell where the legal trails end and the illegal ones begin, so a new user could not be blamed for accessing the area.
> 
> ...


Interestingly enough here is the SDMBA's take on the discussion.

https://sdmba.com/building_unauthorized_trails_j.php

I found this quote particularly interesting. "The construction of unauthorized trails undermines this process-not only because it defies the spirit of cooperation between trail users and trail managers, but also because it poses environmental uncertainties."

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

Klurejr said:


> You are also presenting a small world micro view of your own experiences. You cannot honestly say that you know for a fact it only works the "one way" you see it in every single trail system across the 50 states.


Gambling is generally bad because in the long run, the house always wins. In the world of trail building, when you look at the numbers, you will see that rogue trails are built, then ridden for years, and then adopted as system trails at incredibly high rates, maybe 90%. I suppose you can focus on that 10% of the time they are closed down, or when a land manager in Montana says he isn't going to build that new trail for mountain bikers because he heard about how many rogue trails there are in Sedona, if we are to believe that. But with odds of success like we have seen, even if you aren't building trails, just ride them and tell the land manager how much you like them, and it is much more likely than not, the land manager will adopt them. At the very least he will allow you to ride them and ignore how they were built.

If you have been on this thread for a while, you keep hearing an alarmist point of view with zero evidence that riders are losing access all over because of how a few trails were built. The sky did not fall and it likely won't.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

You choose to ignore the evidence because it doesn’t support your experience and perspective. 

As soon as they push the final decision, we’ll lose access one of my favorite trails. One that’s been there for years, and that we ride regularly.


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

evasive said:


> You choose to ignore the evidence because it doesn't support your experience and perspective.
> 
> As soon as they push the final decision, we'll lose access one of my favorite trails. One that's been there for years, and that we ride regularly.


Show me evidence. I've explained the numbers in Sedona, the premier destination in the U.S. The evidence there is overwhelmingly in favor of rogue trails being adopted. Up the highway in Flagstaff, the numbers are much smaller, but the rate of user-built trails adopted is also near 100%. I rode several newly created trails in Phoenix the last year and saw them closed down. Then this past weekend, I found another 10 new trails to replace the four that got closed.

You seem to already have given up in Montana and as convinced the FS and hunters are going to take access from you, and you have chosen to blame trail builders in Sedona for your upcoming loss of trail access. I've never experienced defeat at the hands of hunters. You guys must really be doing something wrong up there to have the FS side with hunters over mountain bikers.

I'm not buying your story that the FS is judging you based on perceptions and on what is happening in Sedona. If they are choosing hunters needs over mountain bikers needs, it is likely because they are less trouble to work with or the FS is staffed with hunters. Maybe your vibrant community is lacking in the skill of diplomacy. Maybe you can show us all proof that the FS suggested rogue trail building in Sedona played a part in their decision to favor hunters. I think you are looking to blame others for your biking communities failures. Or you are a victim of living in a part of the U.S. that attracts FS staff that embrace the priorities of the 1970's. Like I said, if you love to ride, move somewhere it is embraced by land managers.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> Show me evidence. I've explained the numbers in Sedona, the premier destination in the U.S. The evidence there is overwhelmingly in favor of rogue trails being adopted. Up the highway in Flagstaff, the numbers are much smaller, but the rate of user-built trails adopted is also near 100%. I rode several newly created trails in Phoenix the last year and saw them closed down. Then this past weekend, I found another 10 new trails to replace the four that got closed.
> 
> You seem to already have given up in Montana and as convinced the FS and hunters are going to take access from you, and you have chosen to blame trail builders in Sedona for your upcoming loss of trail access. I've never experienced defeat at the hands of hunters. You guys must really be doing something wrong up there to have the FS side with hunters over mountain bikers.
> 
> I'm not buying your story that the FS is judging you based on perceptions and on what is happening in Sedona. If they are choosing hunters needs over mountain bikers needs, it is likely because they are less trouble to work with or the FS is staffed with hunters. Maybe your vibrant community is lacking in the skill of diplomacy. Maybe you can show us all proof that the FS suggested rogue trail building in Sedona played a part in their decision to favor hunters. I think you are looking to blame others for your biking communities failures. Or you are a victim of living in a part of the U.S. that attracts FS staff that embrace the priorities of the 1970's. Like I said, if you love to ride, move somewhere it is embraced by land managers.


First, Sedona isn't the premier destination. It's good, but it's nowhere close. Second, his isn't the first case I've heard of where Sedona, not to mention other "hotspots", is cited as evidence to not expand or build trail networks. Third, you do realize that hunting in Arizona is nowhere near what it is Montana correct? Your attempted insult is apples to coconuts.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> First, Sedona isn't the premier destination. It's good, but it's nowhere close. Second, his isn't the first case I've heard of where Sedona, not to mention other "hotspots", is cited as evidence to not expand or build trail networks. Third, you do realize that hunting in Arizona is nowhere near what it is Montana correct? Your attempted insult is apples to coconuts.


Nowhere close? Name three destinations more popular. You are long on, what I've heard down here in Arkansas, and very short on actual evidence to anything you claim.

Point to three specific times Sedona was cited as evidence to not expand or build trail networks.

And yes, I know all about Montana. I spend a lot of time visiting my father in Red Lodge. I've ridden on the Great Divide route and ridden just across the state line on the Maah Daah Hey Trail, in Madora, North Dakota. I can understand the FS showing a preference for the needs of hunters. It makes sense. MTBr has member from all over the world and some of them live in places that are not particularly bike friendly. Some have short riding seasons. Some places I travel to, have trails where mountain bikes are only allowed on trails three days a week. If a person is passionate about riding, they will make the decision to relocate to where they can enjoy great trail riding and great weather to ride. Maybe like Arkansas. Or maybe not like Arkansas.

You have made claims you cannot support. I make claims that are supported by the fact most rogue trails are being adopted by land managers or being ignored by land managers. Show me evidence to prove otherwise. And you might want to tell us a little more about your involvement with the land managers in your area, and what level of involvement you have had over the years with trail building. What I hear from you sounds a lot more like a non-expert stating his own biased personal opinion and trying to sell it as a universal truth.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> Nowhere close? Name three destinations more popular. You are long on, what I've heard down here in Arkansas, and very short on actual evidence to anything you claim.
> 
> Point to three specific times Sedona was cited as evidence to not expand or build trail networks.
> 
> ...


Moab, Crested Butte, Brevard, Park City, Wydaho, Lake Tahoe

The situation in Montana and two instances I've personally heard first hand.

You've been shown evidence. You don't want to see it. You love finding obscure long winded articles. Type rogue trail building effects access and illegal trail building effects access into Google and read your heart out. I'm not going to take the time to find them for you because there is enough anecdotal, and direct, evidence in this thread to support the claim.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Moab, Crested Butte, Brevard, Park City, Wydaho, Lake Tahoe
> 
> The situation in Montana and two instances I've personally heard first hand.
> 
> You've been shown evidence. You don't want to see it. You love finding obscure long winded articles. Type rogue trail building effects access and illegal trail building effects access into Google and read your heart out. I'm not going to take the time to find them for you because there is enough anecdotal, and direct, evidence in this thread to support the claim.


Now we are getting somewhere.

Moab is a tremendous riding destination and the Mecca of our sport. Crested Butte has an incredibly short season due to it's elevation. It does not attract very many riders compared to Moab. It's certainly not more popular than Sedona. Park City is a great place to ride in the short summer season. It is not more popular than Sedona. Lake Tahoe? Have you ever ridden in Lake Tahoe? Which trails? The Rim Trail is posted for riding on every other day, because wealthy equestrians have run them off the trails. It is also buried under snow during the winter months. Only Moab is more popular than Sedona.

The situation in Montana? Really, what is the situation in Montana? All you know is that some rider in Montana has said there is a proposal and that hunters are going to be given preference to mountain bikers. It is a proposal and has not been finalized. The part about trail building in Sedona playing a part is based on one person saying it, after making it clear he doesn't approve of the rogue trail building in Sedona. When you hear it coming from the Forest Service, get back to me. The two other instances you mention are also meaningless. You are providing nothing in the way of proof. You ask for evidence all the time and yet you refuse it.

When people like you get backed into a corner, they always respond exactly the same way. They say they could provide evidence to support their claims but they don't. Instead they say such evidence exists if others will simply do a google search. Well, the burden is on you to prove what you are saying. So go ahead and do your simple google search and provide the evidence.

It's impossible for me to take you seriously. I think it's because you are in Arkansas. Louis Black has a great line in an old comedy bit of his. He says that while governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton took Arkansas from 50th in education to 49th in education. The secret? Pencils!


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Boris Badenov said:


> Now we are getting somewhere.
> 
> Moab is a tremendous riding destination and the Mecca of our sport. Crested Butte has an incredibly short season due to it's elevation. It does not attract very many riders compared to Moab. It's certainly not more popular than Sedona. Park City is a great place to ride in the short summer season. It is not more popular than Sedona. Lake Tahoe? Have you ever ridden in Lake Tahoe? Which trails? The Rim Trail is posted for riding on every other day, because wealthy equestrians have run them off the trails. It is also buried under snow during the winter months. Only Moab is more popular than Sedona.
> 
> ...


Please quote where I said I could provide evidence. Hint, you can't. You asked for it and I provided anecdotal evidence because frankly you are not rational or worth my time. I also must be hitting close to home since you went out of your way to unnecessarily disparage my education on a large assumption. Which funnily enough is horribly ironic considering I gave you the exact search terms and you were too lacking in reading comprehension to pull them out.

I'll be nice and give you a step by step tutorial. I know it will be simple and easy to understand since I'm so horribly educated and I can understand it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rouge+trail+building+ effects+access

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Illegal+trail+building+ effects+access

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> Show me evidence. I've explained the numbers in Sedona, the premier destination in the U.S. The evidence there is overwhelmingly in favor of rogue trails being adopted. Up the highway in Flagstaff, the numbers are much smaller, but the rate of user-built trails adopted is also near 100%. I rode several newly created trails in Phoenix the last year and saw them closed down. Then this past weekend, I found another 10 new trails to replace the four that got closed.
> 
> You seem to already have given up in Montana and as convinced the FS and hunters are going to take access from you, and you have chosen to blame trail builders in Sedona for your upcoming loss of trail access. I've never experienced defeat at the hands of hunters. You guys must really be doing something wrong up there to have the FS side with hunters over mountain bikers.
> 
> I'm not buying your story that the FS is judging you based on perceptions and on what is happening in Sedona. If they are choosing hunters needs over mountain bikers needs, it is likely because they are less trouble to work with or the FS is staffed with hunters. Maybe your vibrant community is lacking in the skill of diplomacy. Maybe you can show us all proof that the FS suggested rogue trail building in Sedona played a part in their decision to favor hunters. I think you are looking to blame others for your biking communities failures. Or you are a victim of living in a part of the U.S. that attracts FS staff that embrace the priorities of the 1970's. Like I said, if you love to ride, move somewhere it is embraced by land managers.


Maybe you could try more reading, less arguing.

I didn't claim that the USFS cited Sedona; I said that MTB opponents did. The USFS stated their restriction "responds to concerns" and "is intended to reduce the proliferation of illegally created or maintained (non-system) bicycle trails. Regarding the claims I've made: I posted a screencap of the Forest's justification for the travel restriction, identified the project, and posted a link to the project page. All the documents and comments received are posted there.

Explain to me how we seem to have given up? To me, recognizing a setback and a loss isn't remotely the same thing as giving up. Despite your claims to know all about how the USFS works, your understanding seems limited to what you picked up on a trail crew. I've already stated that the existing forest plan emphasizes wildlife management, so re-read your last two paragraphs with that in mind. And yes, most of the conservation and hunting organizations are made up of retired agency people who have long experience with the public planning process. Organized mountain bikers are a new group to the table. That's a nation-wide phenomenon.

I have no interest in moving to the desert. Too many angry midwestern baby boomer transplants.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Boris Badenov said:


> All you know is that some rider in Montana has said there is a proposal and that hunters are going to be given preference to mountain bikers. It is a proposal and has not been finalized.


It's a draft record of decision, and the USFS has provided written responses to all objections. It's not final, but it's as good as final.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Interestingly enough here is the SDMBA's take on the discussion.
> 
> https://sdmba.com/building_unauthorized_trails_j.php
> 
> ...


Yes and for the most part that is correct, but they are also working to get other trails adopted, and in places like the PQ Tunnels did get some illegally built trails adopted into the official trail system just last year.

I did mention I would never take part in building new rogue trails, perhaps you missed that post.

Like I said, it is not Black and white.

If no one built rouge trails, there would be very few trails to ride/hike/horseback ride.

It is a weird balancing act.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Klurejr said:


> Yes and for the most part that is correct, but they are also working to get other trails adopted, and in places like the PQ Tunnels did get some illegally built trails adopted into the official trail system just last year.
> 
> I did mention I would never take part in building new rogue trails, perhaps you missed that post.
> 
> ...


Maintaining them is building them in the eyes of many... The average layperson isn't going to know or bother to discern the difference.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rockman (Jun 18, 2004)

Good lord this thread is getting stale. Has rogue trail building worked in the past? Yes. Will it continue to do so in the future? Maybe depending on location and land manager. The truth of the matter is the era is largely over. Boris and Switch can continue to revel in their past conquests but Switch paid the price and can't even work on the trails he built. Would blazing in a new 3 mile advanced trail pay dividends? Probably not, the land manager is engaged and it would just piss them off and make the mtb community look bad.

Boris, stop using Flagstaff as a shining example of rogue trail building and adoption. I thought we cleared this up already but 0% of illegally built trails have been adopted and are legal.

Tucker, it's easy to be judgemental sitting on your soapbox in NW Arkansas where IMBA has a huge presence and the Walton Family Foundation has invested millions of dollars into the trails.


> The Walton Foundation has a Home Region Program, which has the stated goal of "improving quality of life for businesses and residents, and [attracting and retaining] employees at all different levels," according to Karen Minkel, Home Region Program Director. To that end, the Home Region Program invests between $40 and $50 million every year into this two-county region in Northwest Arkansas, and the Arkansas Mississippi Delta.


https://www.singletracks.com/blog/mtb-trails/northwest-arkansas-13-million-can-build/

Good lord, with a gazillion dollars where's the incentive to illegally build? There's enough money to not only fund one private trail building contractor but two! Progressive Trail Designs and ironically Rogue Trails. But come clean Tucker. Tell me the awesome trail network at Kessler outside Fayetteville wasn't mostly illegally built.

Really, in this day and age if you feel compelled to illegally build you are taking big risks. The heyday is over. There is ever more scrutiny on our user group and folks that are working hard to advocate for access. You jeopardize those efforts. Think hard about that next trail and what it might mean for your community. It's 2018 and not 1998.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

tuckerjt07 said:


> Maintaining them is building them in the eyes of many... The average layperson isn't going to know or bother to discern the difference.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I respectfully disagree, I think most people understand the difference between keeping a trail healthy and cutting out new brush to make a new trail. I also understand the situation where I live and ride is different from that of other places in the county, state and country.

Also: I delete a few post that were starting to get personal. No need to puff ones chest in a bragging way or push pointed personal questions at others... just leads to bickering.


----------



## Klurejr (Oct 13, 2006)

rockman said:


> *Has rogue trail building worked in the past? Yes. Will it continue to do so in the future? Maybe depending on location and land manager. The truth of the matter is the era is largely over. *


I think this is a very good place for this thread to end.

Thank you rock.


----------

