# What to do if you come across a rough trail



## Bermzilla (Mar 12, 2015)

I was recently out horn hunting with my wife and we came across a rough trail in the process of being built. I hiked it for a bit and found where it came to an abrupt end. After a little poking around I was able to locate the stashed tools. Our community just got approved to build an entire trail system and someone still thinks they need to build there own thing. If I was able to stumble upon this trail, surely others will find it, especially during hunting season. 

What would you do if you were me? Ignore it? Tattletale? It's a strange dilemma to be in.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Allow me to chime in. I would see if it is possible to redirect this renegade trail builders energy to work with the legit trail builders on the approved project. First evaluate the work so far. Are they good builders or should they apprentice. Then track them down and find out are they intended to be secret trails or open to all riders? Do they even know about all the B******t you have to go through just to start building trails these days? When I started 20 years ago I never thought about who owned the land we just built. Are they willing to cooperate with the legit builders? Motivated trail builders are sometimes hard to find, harness their enthusiasm if possible. I have seen good trail work destroyed and fledgling trail builders demotivated by control freak trail overlords. Mostly we are all working toward the same goal see if you can work them into the fold.


----------



## Bent Wheel (Oct 6, 2007)

I would ignore it and let them be.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

The correct course of action legally is to notify the land owner/manager and let them deal with it; you aren't a policing entity to worry about the legality of what others do. If you don't want to do that, ignore it. Personally, if I thought the builder were doing damage to the area in creating erosion or ecological problems, or damaging the reputation of trail builders in the area, I'd tell the appropriate authority and leave it at that. Getting the builders involved in legal work is the best way to go as ABud suggested, but if they're dedicated enough to build trail out of the way of prying eyes, they're probably aware of the legal opportunities in the area. I'd leave them a letter anonymously with contact information for working on the legal system at the least. Compliment them on their work and effort and don't be a jerk if you do that. Sugar makes the medicine go down. Whatever you do, don't make anything a personal conflict.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Leave them a note with the appropriate contacts for legit trailwork with their tools.


----------



## MTRRON (Nov 14, 2008)

Leave a note, let them understand why, hope the are willing to channel their efforts to legit building.

If you find the note on the ground crumpled into a ball, the work still in process...well you know what to do.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Crush them. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Funny thing is I think most of us started building like this. At first when BMX hit the seen or before (I used to jump my bike that was equipped with sissy bar and banana seat) we would build on the abandon lot where people dumped appliances, refrigerator or ovens were tabletops and water heaters made great rollers. It seemed nobody cared until the lot was sold for a house. The dirt bike years… Then when the mountain bike came along some years later we went deeper into the woods and built trails usually modifying some old mining road or poorly concieved foot path never even thinking about who 's property it was nobody seemed to care. Then came the potheads, the the hikers, dog walkers, trail runners, boy scouts, the environmentalists, the bike club, kiosk builders, The Friends of Yaady Yaady Park, land managers, Department of Environmental Protection, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 401c3s, Ambulance Chasers, insurance policies, Not in my Back Yard no matter how long you've been there. 

Yeah on second thought Leave them be.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't know if it matters to you, but you mentioned horn (antler?) hunting in the area. If you want the animals to stick around, the bike trail will probably work against that especially in areas hunters are allowed to hunt. Just having people around scares deer and other animals away, whether they are hikers, bikers, etc. If the area is absolutely not hunted, the animals are probably not as scared of people (Yellowstone animals are almost tame for example). I have personal experience with animals that were protected from hunting and 100% believe they learn where to go when they start hearing gunshots during hunting season. I thought about this after my last post and figured you might have more of a personal interest in keeping bikers out of the area because of this. Wildlife managed lands have an interest in keeping people away if they are trying to increase animal populations.

Off-topic: I believe hunters are some of the worst stewards of wild lands. They'll tear a road into undisturbed land to avoid dragging out an animal if they can, all the while leaving beer bottles and camp fires wherever they feel like it. I shouldn't generalize, but hunters have a crazy love/kill relationship with the wild that only makes sense in some crazy possession obsessed world view. If you love something, let it be free. Before anyone rakes me over the coals for this, I grew up around a lot of hunters, including immediate friends and family. Hunting seasons were spent chasing trespassers off private property and taking pictures of animals. I split a cow elk with a friend last year from an area the fish and game wanted a reduction in elk, so I'm not really against hunting altogether, but hunters are a crazy bunch. If your interest is hunting in the area of this trail, you should be concerned about an illegal trail through it. There will be less antlers in the area if the trail becomes popular after people discover it.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Coldfriction said:


> I don't know if it matters to you, but you mentioned horn (antler?) hunting in the area. If you want the animals to stick around, the bike trail will probably work against that especially in areas hunters are allowed to hunt. Just having people around scares deer and other animals away, whether they are hikers, bikers, etc. If the area is absolutely not hunted, the animals are probably not as scared of people (Yellowstone animals are almost tame for example). I have personal experience with animals that were protected from hunting and 100% believe they learn where to go when they start hearing gunshots during hunting season. I thought about this after my last post and figured you might have more of a personal interest in keeping bikers out of the area because of this. Wildlife managed lands have an interest in keeping people away if they are trying to increase animal populations.
> 
> Off-topic: I believe hunters are some of the worst stewards of wild lands. They'll tear a road into undisturbed land to avoid dragging out an animal if they can, all the while leaving beer bottles and camp fires wherever they feel like it. I shouldn't generalize, but hunters have a crazy love/kill relationship with the wild that only makes sense in some crazy possession obsessed world view. If you love something, let it be free. Before anyone rakes me over the coals for this, I grew up around a lot of hunters, including immediate friends and family. Hunting seasons were spent chasing trespassers off private property and taking pictures of animals. I split a cow elk with a friend last year from an area the fish and game wanted a reduction in elk, so I'm not really against hunting altogether, but hunters are a crazy bunch. If your interest is hunting in the area of this trail, you should be concerned about an illegal trail through it. There will be less antlers in the area if the trail becomes popular after people discover it.


Wrong. Typically a trail built in an area where there is abundant wildlife will have no affect on the wildlife levels in that area. In fact, if you clear a path through the brush without even building a trail, the deer will start to make a trail along the path you clear. If you actually make a trail, the deer will help you pack it. It has been my experience, time, and time, and time again that the only affect that trails have on wildlife is it changes their movement patterns slightly to incorporate the trails that were built because they become the path of least resistance. In short, you're just flat wrong.


----------



## TORQUE-29er (Nov 26, 2008)

Cotharyus said:


> Wrong. Typically a trail built in an area where there is abundant wildlife will have no affect on the wildlife levels in that area. In fact, if you clear a path through the brush without even building a trail, the deer will start to make a trail along the path you clear. If you actually make a trail, the deer will help you pack it. It has been my experience, time, and time, and time again that the only affect that trails have on wildlife is it changes their movement patterns slightly to incorporate the trails that were built because they become the path of least resistance. In short, you're just flat wrong.


I agree with Cotharyus. I've seen it.


----------



## epic (Apr 16, 2005)

MTRRON said:


> Leave a note, let them understand why, hope the are willing to channel their efforts to legit building.
> 
> If you find the note on the ground crumpled into a ball, the work still in process...well you know what to do.


Yeah, leave them alone.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

I'm with natural conservationist, biologists, and scientific studies that say so. Maybe you're in a location where the deer aren't hunted and they don't have the fear of people they do in my area of the world. I understand white tail deer are a problem in a lot of places, but that doesn't apply to mule deer in the rockies. 

My grandfather's farm is now a wildlife managed area now where human pressure is required to be limited. There is a guy that is supposed to be enforcing it. The trail itself doesn't impact the animals, but people on it do. There are a lot of factors, but if you've ever seen a bike disturb a horse on a trail and believe it doesn't do the same thing to deer, elk, and moose, you're in denial.

My grandpa didn't allow hunting on his property for over forty years of his life. He had herds twenty mule deer and in the winter they'd get together into huge herds of fifty plus animals when he was allowed to feed them before fish and game shut that down. He gated his roads and didn't allow anyone on it. He even helped prosecute his nephew for shooting a trophy elk out of season on his property. He loved the animals almost as much as his family, and he used to shoot them in the strange hunter's love/kill paradigm. There used to be a LOT of animals on his property that would run there every time they heard a gun shot nearby.

Ten years ago he became senile with dementia and no longer was allowed to drive or do anything. His kids decided to try to make money on hunting and allowed what was supposed to be a managed number of hunters on the property each year. They rented the farm out to people who didn't give a damn for the animals, the roads, the tools, the equipment, etc. 

Where I once could take a ten minute drive and see thirty animals, with several four or five point bucks, I now see two or three if I'm lucky. There is no love for the animals like there used to be there. The roads don't get gated like they did, and while strangers find there way up the property family members hate each other enough that they don't allow each other up there. There are security cameras on the property now and my brother had the cops called on him for driving up the farm road. The guy managing the animals lets all his buddies hunt there and go scout around there all the time. (Wonder why I don't build trail there?)

If the animals in Bermzilla's area are mule deer, a heavily used trail will impact the animals behavior and they'll go somewhere there are less people and less hunting. Where you guys are, that very well may be where you build the bike trails, but it isn't here. I don't believe human infrastructure impacts animals all that much, but the presence of people has scientifically been shown to do so.

To scientifically know if what you've done has had an impact, you'd have to have accurately counted the animals in the area before and after the disturbance. Seeing animals in the area after the disturbance doesn't not mean there was no impact. And correlation does not equal causation so you'd have to conduct the same study in multiple areas to determine probable cause. These have been done.

Personally, I'd rather trails than deer or elk most of the time. If it weren't for hunters, I think the impact would be less significant than it is. But I know that I've seen deer populations change based on human behavior.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Cotharyus said:


> Wrong. Typically a trail built in an area where there is abundant wildlife will have no affect on the wildlife levels in that area. In fact, if you clear a path through the brush without even building a trail, the deer will start to make a trail along the path you clear. If you actually make a trail, the deer will help you pack it. It has been my experience, time, and time, and time again that the only affect that trails have on wildlife is it changes their movement patterns slightly to incorporate the trails that were built because they become the path of least resistance. In short, you're just flat wrong.


My experience also. I have a NEPA survey to back that up, btw.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

Pavlov's Doe: Can Deer Pattern Humans? is one of numerous articles out there. This is a bow hunting article, no loud gun shots involved. He sites a radio collar study in the article. The interest here is getting bike trails built, with which I agree, but to claim people don't affect wildlife is wrong. An illegal trail which isn't much used is probably not a huge concern to bikers, but to a wild life manager it might be.

Anecdotally, I knew a doe that would bed in the exact same small stand of trees to give birth and raise her babies. She did this for something like eight years straight. Suppose a guy put a trail there, would it change her behavior or no? Also anecdotally, I see more wildlife the farther I get away from paved roads and houses. My grandpa quit hunting as he got older and familiar enough with the animals to recognize their individual face patterns and personalities. Most people don't have enough time with the animals to realize their behaviors. Pretty much every serious hunter knows that the animals avoid them. The animals won't know the difference between the smell of a hunter and a biker. According to the article above, the deer might use the trails you guys built during the night but avoid them during the day in favor of other trails.

I don't have an interest in conservationism here, but maybe Bermzilla might, so I just included it as something for him to consider if it's important to him based on the information he shared. I've run across plenty of trails I know weren't built with permission on public land and I just let them be, but I don't know if they are soundly built or not. If they get adopted, I'll ride them then. If I found an illegal trail on my family property, my family would prosecute if I let them know about it. Whether I did that or not would depend on where the trail is and how well it is built.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

To the OP's question...

Unless you are certain the spontaneous work being done genuinely jeopardizes relations with the powers that be, be appreciative you have someone willing to do trail work - thank them, buy them a beer, and ride their trails.

Trail Nazis control freaks are the antithesis to mountainbiking.

I'm just glad I live in an area where the whitetail far outnumber people.


----------



## ridingthebuff (Jul 9, 2009)

Miker J said:


> Trail Nazis control freaks are the antithesis to mountainbiking.


This


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

To make a point, hunters and bikers exhibit entirely different behavior. Bikers pass quickly through an area whereas hunters are looking for game and may be a presence for long periods of time. But routing also plays an important role, and if the designer knows the area well trails can be routed through the more open areas where the deer don't go to give birth or hang out. I have been observing our local mule deer herd for almost fifty years and I think I know a little about where they spend time. I have found that trail density in an area is a more critical factor.

Coldfriction- What is going on on your family farm is unethical in my opinion, and possibly not even legal in some places, where it is called baiting. In any case, artificially feeding game animals is not contributing to a healthy natural ecosystem, it is producing meat for slaughter.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Cotharyus said:


> Wrong. Typically a trail built in an area where there is abundant wildlife will have no affect on the wildlife levels in that area. In fact, if you clear a path through the brush without even building a trail, the deer will start to make a trail along the path you clear. If you actually make a trail, the deer will help you pack it. It has been my experience, time, and time, and time again that the only affect that trails have on wildlife is it changes their movement patterns slightly to incorporate the trails that were built because they become the path of least resistance. In short, you're just flat wrong.


In short, you are not correct. 
Here in the Plumas County, trail builders had to reroute big projects to be mindful of migration corridors and breeding grounds. The same can be said of the Gold Bar Rim Trail in Moab, UT. It is not uncommon for trails to be denied on this basis. That is why a proper EIR is required. This is why it is important to be familiar with these sorts of issues, not just locally but nationally, when considering building a trail. Or even when commenting on policy.

In response to the topic, it really depends on local relations. This is not something I would want to make public even if it was jeopardizing another even larger project. I might bring it up among the leaders of the local trail chapter at most. I wouldn't hesitate to set a game cam out there if it risked something greater; I'd leave a note or confront them.


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

The animal feeding ended in the seventies when fish and game decided it wasn't in the interest of the local wildlife. My Grandpa only did it in the winter when the deer would come down into the valley to eat. Other local farmers tended to hate the deer and elk if they were eating their crops but, my grandpa would delay letting me dig up volunteer wheat in the spring on summer fallow fields because the deer liked to eat it. He also developed natural springs and runoff into drinking spots for the animals. Those things might be considered baiting by some I suppose, but my grandpa's property birthed a lot of deer that others shot elsewhere. The entire area is worse to hunt on now that the deer don't have the refuge he created.

Interestingly, I've watched fish and game shoot and haul off twenty cow elk by helicopter because of farmer complaints. They are interested in keeping populations in check, not only from being to low.

I agree that bikers on trails for the most part are are a negligible impact on animals, but if an area is hunted regularly, I expect all human scents to have an impact.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Miker J said:


> To the OP's question...
> 
> Unless you are certain the spontaneous work being done genuinely jeopardizes relations with the powers that be, be appreciative you have someone willing to do trail work - thank them, buy them a beer, and ride their trails.
> 
> ...


Agree with this.

FWIW, hunting is allowed most places I've ridden and we still run across wildlife very regularly. Deer definitely seem to know when/where hunting is going on; we get a bunch that hunker down in my backyard every fall for a few months.


----------



## clockwork (Dec 9, 2006)

I would leave it be as bringing attention to it could do more damage for the mtb communtiy and possible provide conflicts with new stuff that has been approved. If it looks built well then continue on with your life if it looks unsustainable then possibly try to find out who it is and educate them if possible .Also let them know that their work could jeopardize legit trails that have been approved to built.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Bike Trails don't disturb wildlife Bullets do. I'm with Cotharyus.


----------



## ABud (Feb 12, 2012)

Like Ted says "Kill what you Eat and Eat what you Kill"


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Ride that biatch like ya stole it!!

-------------------------------------
Opinions are like A-holes... everybody 
has one & they're usually full of...??


----------



## Bermzilla (Mar 12, 2015)

Admittedly this is an over exaggeration, but it sounds like the consensus is 1. Don't build rouge trails. 2. If you find a rouge trail just leave the builders alone and don't draw attention to it. It's almost like saying "don't steal, but if you see someone stealing just look away and don't make a fuss. Am I missing something here?


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Bermzilla said:


> Admittedly this is an over exaggeration, but it sounds like the consensus is 1. Don't build rouge trails. 2. If you find a rouge trail just leave the builders alone and don't draw attention to it. It's almost like saying "don't steal, but if you see someone stealing just look away and don't make a fuss. Am I missing something here?


Who's the one in charge that says a trail is "rouge"?


----------



## Coldfriction (Oct 31, 2009)

The reason it feels like turning a blind eye to theft is because it's not legal. Whether or not anyone or anything is actually damaged and to what extent is a different story, and why it isn't like stealing and more like piracy. The specifics matter as to whether or not it's worth reporting to you. If you want to feel 100% guilt free and as though you've done the right thing, go ahead and report it to the land manager. Most people here will tell you that isn't a solution either, and hurts cooperative feelings and behavior. The letter or note idea attempting to bring the builder into the fold of legit trail builders is the best option; if he feels unappreciated or even under attack by the powers that be, you may never get him to help and you can always use more help and trails. In a lot of places, if it weren't for rogue trails, there wouldn't be legit trails today. It hasn't been that long ago that this was the case and a lot of guys here have a lot of history with rogue trails and getting them adopted. The decision is yours to make. My opinion is that whatever you do, don't make any enemies. I also have wondered whether the trail is legitimately rogue. It seems to me that legit trails typically remain unmarked while under construction and their access points finished last.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

Most rogue trails I've seen cause me to chuckle, and tend to go away very quickly. I assume they are built by youthful novices, who soon lose interest. So no need to do much. The other thing is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and I was building social trails, and was discovered and embraced by legitimate trail builders, and invited to become one of them, well, that would be cool. I would probably be hooked. Trail builders are valuable people.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Miker J said:


> Who's the one in charge that says a trail is "rouge"?


Good point.

It all depends on the local situation. Not all legal (or really damn close to legal) trailbuilding involves organizations and bureaucracy. And neither of those is an absolute requirement to build good trail.

Personally, I'd be inclined to try to run into the guys doing the building and crack a couple beers and see where they're coming from.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

In our case the land manager decided which trails were legit MTB trails, whether to their standard or in need of repairs. Therefore anything built after that was either done with their consent or is rogue. Here unauthorised trail puts volunteers in a very awkward position. We sign eyes and ears reporting agreements and really have no choice at times. If you build large amounts of poor quality trail through areas planned for authorised trail, or next to homes on the park boundary, or through sensitive areas we have to report it because the LM is not stupid, has cameras and knows we know. We do try to make contact though, online and sometimes in print.

Maybe this is something for its own thread, but isn't it time we gave less air to illegal builders? We were at a forum yesterday and a university researcher presented a survey about rogue trailwork. For the record the survey showed it isn't kids, but 40 year olds building trail and sighting the need for jumps and other TTF. The rose coloured glasses were firmly on with respondents saying rogue trail was not eroded, had no negative impact on the environment and offered high quality riding.

It's true that we would not be riding here without rogue trail, but the time for rogue building has passed whenever and wherever authorised trail construction is an available option. That's it here really. End of discussion.

Why should those who deliberately continue doing the wrong thing receive attention whether via surveys, forums or here? It gives a level of legitimacy that is just not deserved. ......Pause for the onslaught of homogenised trail, dumbing down, wide footpath accusations. If you want to ride McTrail here, then go for the latest rogue efforts. I'm tired of good trail being denigrated by people who build without any variety. It's all done without consideration of riding lines, future vegetation growth, inevitable trail degradation, safety, views or anything else that defines good trail. In short it is rubbish and awkward as well. If it was brought up the standard our LM requires, it would be boring green trail apart from some dodgy bridges and unnecessary obstructions that would be removed. It is homogenised trail in the true definition and an insult to the land and riders who deserve better. It is also a thorn in the side of the volunteer/LM collaboration.

Now pause for the onslaught of Squamish, Kamloops, North Shore, PNW, Sedona examples of great trail. We don't get that here. What we get is people who have no intention of building something substantial with a lasting legacy. Scratch it in and move on like ants is the routine because the faster you move, the less likely you get caught. If it fails, who cares, build another. The truth about illegal trails except maybe dedicated DH and jump lines is that they are made with priorities other than best practice. Don't get me wrong; I believe the land belongs to us and exclusion is not appropriate when it comes to walking and MTB. However as stated above, if there is an authorised alternative, then rogue has no place and should have no face.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Ridnparadise said:


> I'm tired of good trail being denigrated by people who build without any variety.


That statement could definitely cut both ways, dontcha think?


----------



## drag_slick (Sep 24, 2004)

What scares me about rogue trail is that the people building it might not know what constraints are on the land they are building on. There's a trail system where I live that has more room to build on and the land is owned by the county. There are a lot of archeological sites on the property and and if rogue trail was ever built through them there's the possibility of any future expansion or possibly existing trail getting shut down.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Guess it depends on where you live and the amount of pressure and real regs on the land.


----------



## Bermzilla (Mar 12, 2015)

I guess a hunter discovered the trail. Someone mounted a Treestand just a few feet from the single track. It will now be just a matter of time before others discover the trail. This is going to get interesting.


----------



## Black_Cat (Jun 29, 2015)

Mind your own business?


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

live and let live, why be a tattle tale on something that won't affect you.

maybe it is legit trail building you don't know about. 

I guess I am tired of people butting there noses into others business, when there is no need.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Sometimes the 'rogue' trailbuilders know more about what's up with certain lands much better than most, and know how things aren't always going to be black and white as far as access. We've got some decent stuff built in 'grey' areas on a wink'n'nod level that will never create a problem for anyone, ever. Will probably lose them at some point, but that's many years away. Long term sustainability on an area that will see development at some point in the foreseeable future is not as much of a concern as it is in a park or forest setting. I personally like banging in trail in a spot you know is going to see bulldozers sometime in the next decade or so. Takes a lot of pressure off.


----------



## Dcr5468 (Sep 4, 2015)

Wildlife pattern humans the same way humans pattern wildlife. Trust me they know when the ATVs crank up at 5:00 AM it's time to bug out. Farm equipment logging equipment, trucks, and probably bikes that they see all year without getting shot at don't seem to bother them much. Thus, one of the reasons I justified a more expensive bike, to sneak in and out of my deer hunting spots unnoticed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Boris Badenov (May 31, 2015)

*The Politics of Rogue Trail Building, a Tutorial*

It's best to view Rogue Trail builders as you would view people who drive past you doing 75 miles and hours on your way to work. The speed limit is clearly posted 65 mph. Those guys are violating the law. They deserve a ticket. But they won't get one unless the law is right behind them and they are doing 12 mph or more over the limit. That's the way the game is played. You get to drive along at 70 mph without risk of getting a ticket, so those high rollers doing 75 are providing cover for you to break the law a little less than they are. They aren't putting all drivers at risk of getting the freeway closed down. They might point out that you and almost every other driver is violating the law to some extent. Oddly, it is because of the people speeding over the posted limits that speed limits got raised.

Rogue trail builders are the reason we have a sport. They built the first trails. The more they build, the better their skills. Most of them have become highly skilled at building sustainable trails without having to wait ten years or NEPA and other obstacles. Talk to anyone who rides in Sedona and you will find out 45 of the last 50 trails built in Sedona were user built trails, rogue trails. Did the Forest Service close them down and quit working with IMBA or local riding groups? Nope. They did what they most often do, they adopted the majority of those rogue trails into their official trail system. You cannot spend a weekend riding in Sedona without riding on trails built by riders without permission from land managers. The result is tourism revenues are way up and Sedona is a Mecca for mountain bikers from around the world. No blow back and no down side.

Pick up one of those tools you came across and help those builders get that trail built.


----------



## Miker J (Nov 4, 2003)

Yeah, like he said


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Boris Badenov said:


> Rogue trail builders are the reason we have a sport. They built the first trails. .


It's different place to place but almost everywhere that I know this is not true. MTB started on jeep roads and already established dirt paths - think Mt Tam or Pearl Pass as well as already established hiking trails (think trails labeled "pack trails" on USGS maps). I started riding in the mid 80s and that's what we were riding and it was pretty similar everywhere else that I went to. A lot of trails were people finding old forgotten roads or mining traces, but it wasn't "building" in the sense that's being suggested in the OP. Illegal trail building in that sense - people using tools, building "features" and that sort of thing is a fairly recent thing- it started taking off in the late 90s.

To say "rogue trail building is the reason we have a sport" is in my experience, more than a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Black_Cat (Jun 29, 2015)

Boris Badenov said:


> It's best to view Rogue Trail builders as you would view people who drive past you doing 75 miles and hours on your way to work. The speed limit is clearly posted 65 mph. Those guys are violating the law. They deserve a ticket. But they won't get one unless the law is right behind them and they are doing 12 mph or more over the limit. That's the way the game is played. You get to drive along at 70 mph without risk of getting a ticket, so those high rollers doing 75 are providing cover for you to break the law a little less than they are. They aren't putting all drivers at risk of getting the freeway closed down. They might point out that you and almost every other driver is violating the law to some extent. Oddly, it is because of the people speeding over the posted limits that speed limits got raised.
> 
> Rogue trail builders are the reason we have a sport. They built the first trails. The more they build, the better their skills. Most of them have become highly skilled at building sustainable trails without having to wait ten years or NEPA and other obstacles. Talk to anyone who rides in Sedona and you will find out 45 of the last 50 trails built in Sedona were user built trails, rogue trails. Did the Forest Service close them down and quit working with IMBA or local riding groups? Nope. They did what they most often do, they adopted the majority of those rogue trails into their official trail system. You cannot spend a weekend riding in Sedona without riding on trails built by riders without permission from land managers. The result is tourism revenues are way up and Sedona is a Mecca for mountain bikers from around the world. No blow back and no down side.
> 
> Pick up one of those tools you came across and help those builders get that trail built.


You nailed it. Thank you.


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

Cotharyus said:


> Wrong. Typically a trail built in an area where there is abundant wildlife will have no affect on the wildlife levels in that area. In fact, if you clear a path through the brush without even building a trail, the deer will start to make a trail along the path you clear. If you actually make a trail, the deer will help you pack it. It has been my experience, time, and time, and time again that the only affect that trails have on wildlife is it changes their movement patterns slightly to incorporate the trails that were built because they become the path of least resistance. In short, you're just flat wrong.


I'm with you. 
I used to work in the forest products industry in south central Idaho amongst some of the largest elk herds still roaming the land, and those elk weren't the least bit perturbed by our presence. 
Same goes for mule deer.
Once there was a skid trail through the woods, it became a nightly route to and from water and forage for most critters.
True, they would abandon it during the day when traffic was active, but after we went home for the night, out they would come, even licking hydraulic fluid - yuck - off of the equipment.
Each morning their nightly presence was evidenced by hoof tracks up and down every skid trail in the area.
They definitely didn't move out of the area.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

mudflap said:


> I'm with you.
> I used to work in the forest products industry in south central Idaho amongst some of the largest elk herds still roaming the land, and those elk weren't the least bit perturbed by our presence.
> Same goes for mule deer.
> Once there was a skid trail through the woods, it became a nightly route to and from water and forage for most critters.
> ...


So if a few species of animals, going only by your anecdotal observations, seem to adapt (or maybe they don't have anywhere else to go) fairly well, that means that all or even most do the same?


----------



## mudflap (Feb 23, 2004)

zrm said:


> So...


Sorry man, you lost me after "so."


----------



## Black_Cat (Jun 29, 2015)

mudflap said:


> Sorry man, you lost me after "so."


HE was lost after "so", too.

He's trying to sound smarter than he is, I think.

Using "anecdotal", for the first time in public, got him so excited he forgot about grammar, punctuation, and a run on sentence.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Black_Cat said:


> HE was lost after "so", too.
> 
> He's trying to sound smarter than he is, I think.
> 
> Using "anecdotal", for the first time in public, got him so excited he forgot about grammar, punctuation, and a run on sentence.


:lol: Hey thanks for the nice grammar lesson. Since I assume you don't agree with my point I'm wondering if you have a coherent counter argument.


----------

