ash kelly
Video

Ash Kelly on Seymour Trail Closures

Reading time

If we need a spokesperson, we have a great candidate in Ash Kelly.

I have been cc'ed on some excellent letters to the politicians who sit on Metro Vancouver's water committee, which oversees the LSCR. If you'd like to join the chorus of opposition to Metro's heavy handed actions, these are the people you should contact.

If you live in one of the municipalities listed, address the letter to that person. If you are from outside of B.C., or even outside Canada, your voice is even more important.

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to to make their opinion known.

Contact Information for Metro Vancouver Water Committee Members​

West, Brad (C) – Port Coquitlam​​ email: [email protected] Sager, Mark (VC) – West Vancouver email [email protected] Albrecht, P​aul – Langley City email: [email protected]
Bell, Don – North Vancouver City email: [email protected]
Cassidy, Laura – scəẃaθən məsteyəxʷ ​(Tsawwassen First Nation) phone: 604.735.1496
Guichon, Alicia – Delta email: [email protected]
Hodge, Craig – Coquitlam email: [email protected]
Keithley, Joe – Burnab​y email: [email protected]
Little, Mike – North Vancouver District email: [email protected] MacDonald, Nicole – Pitt Meadows email: [email protected]
Meiszner, Peter – Vancouver email: [email protected] ​ Rindt, Rob – Langley Township​ email: [email protected]
Stutt, Rob – Surrey​ email: [email protected]

For any email you send, cc [email protected]

Related Stories

Trending on NSMB

Comments

LoamtoHome
+16 Sven Cr4w gramm Dave Smith Adrian White GravityAddict cedrico Henry Chinaski grambo Seb_Kemp Couch_Surfer Lee Lau DancingWithMyself Pete Roggeman Shmarv blacksheep

Nailed it

Reply

Lee-Lau
+8 Henry Chinaski Couch_Surfer Dave Smith Jerry Willows Seb_Kemp Pete Roggeman Shmarv blacksheep

- Points to well built trails as being those targeted by Metro

- Acknowledges that there are trails which aren't as well built.  (Correctly) says that it would be good for Metro to find a way to educate those builders.  

- Takes polite dig as Metro's assertion that Metro has good working relationship with NSMBA  (yeah right Metro)

- Points out that NSMBA has significant funding from government so may not be in best position to oppose/ disagree publicly with Metro

- Points out that Metro says that builders must work through NSMBA.   

-Follows with point that community is not homogeneous and that some builders don't feel NSMBA speaks for them and such builders want to remain independent 

Agreed. Nailed it

Reply

DaveSmith
+8 Jerry Willows Adrian White Cam McRae Lee Lau Seb_Kemp Kyle Dixon Shmarv blacksheep

Vote for Ash

Reply

.glib
+8 Mike Kittmer person person Stephen Norman Lynx . GravityAddict grambo Pete Roggeman Speeder1

This morning there were workers from I assume Hydro, running 6 dump trucks and two backhoes to dump gravel and resurface the powerlines road and final double track climb of old buck up to the road. In the few weeks leading up to this new drainage pipes have been dug in and the foliage cut way back on both sides.

Looks great, much needed and way easier to climb on a bike (and even better on e it packs down more). But hard to believe that we should be wringing our hands about the little singletrack cut a few hundred meters west of there over environmental damage when this level of industrial road building is going on.

Reply

syncro
+1 Offrhodes42 Shmarv Lee Lau

Do you think it's reasonable to compare the maintenance of a service road for a powerline that delivers electricity to thousands of people and businesses on the North Shore to a trail used for recreation?  How many little singletrack trails do we ignore until we get to the point where combined they are a significant cause of environmental damage? This is part of what I talked about when saying we need to look at a much bigger picture of a trail network as a whole. It's endemic to our society that we primarily think about taking what we want, need or is profitable first before considering what the greater impacts are.

Reply

denomerdano
+1 Lynx .

Why isn't there a single track under the powerlines?

Reply

syncro
0 Kristian Øvrum Lee Lau

That’s a question for Hydro and the NSMBA.

Reply

heckler
+3 Cooper Quinn Lee Lau DancingWithMyself

Because nobody has asked BC Hydro/DNV for permission to put one in and maintain it.  New Corkscrew exit (aka Powerline on Trailforks) wasn't too hard (I heard).

Reply

joedirt
0

Tough spot to maintain. Powerline turns to dust quick in the spring then Hydro's contractors dgaf and drive excavators over the berms while brush cutting every couple years. Hand building through 1-2ft. deep slash pile isn't the best time either. Machine build would only be worth it if machine maintenance is budgeted for.

Anyone ever wonder why Powerline took a sudden dog leg onto the road instead of going to Pingu/Salvation? Ha..

Reply

earleb
+1 grambo

Power Line was machine build under a permit from BC Hydro under the power lines. There was some misunderstanding at that time about the full permitting process. Permits would be needed from the land owner and BC Hydro for any building under power lines. It's built, it's permitted, but uh not sure the process would happen again.

Captain-Snappy
0

My guess is 'risk of liability'. We might not, but there are always a few who would.

Reply

andy-eunson
0

Probably not liability. In Whistler we have a number of trails that cross or are aligned along the power line right of way. Last summer some trails were closed for a few months to allow Hydro to install new equipment. Re-opened once done. Hydro will also go in every few years to clear out trees and brush under their right of way. WORCA will go in after these works are complete to repair or re-establish the trails with Hydro’s blessing. 

What there might be is an agreement with Hydro with a hold harmless and indemnity clause in their favour. If some trail user gets injured and sues hydro, WORCA (insurer) will defend Hydro.

Reply

kperras
+6 Cr4w Lee Lau Jerry Willows Henry Chinaski grambo Seb_Kemp SockPuppet Kristian Øvrum

Mark, yes it is reasonable. Agencies like Metro Vancouver will parrot the tired old tropes of environmental consequences of building unsanctioned trails, which reprensent a relatively miniscule impact to the forest, while conveniently down-playing the impacts of laying down aggregate in the same areas that they claim to be environmentally sensitive. Another heavy rainfall and all of the fresh sediment goes right into the Seymour River or in the Indian Arm, despite their best efforts, if any were made, to divert it elsewhere. Not to mention the impact of clear cutting to allow the powerlines to exist and be maintained. Take a walk in the local forests and you will quickly find dozens, if not hundreds, of trails and roads that have been reclaimed by nature over time. The impact of those trails have been relatively short-lived in the big picture.

You need to see the forest for the trees, and not the other way around as you keep advocating for.

Reply

syncro
+1 Andy Eunson taprider Kristian Øvrum Shmarv Lee Lau joedirt Jerry Willows

So Ken, do we just eliminate the power lines and electricity for the Shore? If you follow your argument through that’s where you end up. In the same way if you follow your argument through on trails then there is a huge maze of trails all over the place. Where does it end? Does there not need to be some sort of body that determines just how many trails there should be in an area?

For sure one trail on its own isn’t going to cause an environmental catastrophe, but this wasn’t just about one trail and it wasn’t just about the environment. 

Is the balance off between the trails we want to have and the trails we do have? I’d say yes. Should we be able to go out and just cut trail wherever we want? I’d say no. Somewhere in between that gap  there is an ideal balance to be struck, one that is obviously not going to keep everyone happy. Until we find that balance though, there are a set of rules in place that if not followed will have some consequences. The recent trail closures are evidence of that. 

So the question comes back to what do we do. We can continue to play the same game of whack-a-mole of unsanctioned building and closures or we can try and change the system. A handful people making some noise probably won’t move the needle but a few thousand might have a good chance. So maybe this recent spate of closures actually works in our favour and helps to initiate change we’d like to see. Time will tell. 

Btw, those power line access roads don’t dump straight into bodies of water. Those are the sorts of hyperbolic comparisons or statements I don’t agree with. They may satisfy from an emotional/ego perspective, but they don’t play well in terms of wanting to increase access.

Reply

kperras
+1 Lee Lau grambo Jerry Willows Kristian Øvrum Bern

They do. Water that hits mid-Old Buck and the powerline road funnels into Mystery Creek, Canyon Creek, Panorama Creek, and Kia Creek; all salmon spawning tributaries. Both sides got their culverts blown apart in the last 2 winters. Don't even start with the road salt and gravel on the road up to the ski hill in the winter, or the fresh landscape work done on the ski hill this summer.

Again, forest for the trees. Go for a walk in the woods and look around and you'll quickly find out what's important and what's not.

Reply

syncro
+4 Andy Eunson Kristian Øvrum Bern Shmarv DancingWithMyself Lee Lau

I've done a lot of walking in the woods.

I don't think that playing a game of whataboutism is a path forwards. I don't agree with excusing our behaviour simply because something similar is happening somewhere else. Forest for the tress is recognizing how other people/groups perceive us. For a long time the mtb community hasn't wanted to recognize or acknowledge the impact we have and by blowing off the environmental argument we continue to do that. At one NSMBA AGM many years ago, maybe 20?, a board member talked about how we needed to recognize how our actions in terms of unsanctioned trails have effects. I know Lee was there. The room was pretty quiet after that statement.

Henry-Chinaski
+5 Jerry Willows Lee Lau SockPuppet Coiler BeesIntheTrap Shmarv Kristian Øvrum

I didn’t want to jump in the middle here, but I couldn’t help myself. IMO, Metro Vancouver selectively calls on environmental concerns when it suits its narrative. How impactful is New Normal or Iceland compared to large-scale projects happening in the same area? That’s a reasonable question to ask.

For the record, I didn’t think Ash was disingenuous at all. If Metro Vancouver were truly prioritizing environmental protection, they’d provide clear, evidence-based assessments to back up their decisions. Instead, we get vague claims about "environmental damage" with zero transparency. You dismissed Ken's point as hyperbole, but road salt, culvert failures, and direct runoff are quantifiable impacts. Meanwhile, no one is conducting an environmental study on New Normal or Iceland because they’re too busy ripping e-bikes up/down Seymour ;-)

At the end of the day, this isn’t about a couple of trails, it’s about inconsistency and a lack of transparency. Trail builders and riders aren’t asking for a free pass to do whatever they want; we’re asking for a fair process, real consultation, and a transparent approach to land use. If Metro actually cared about the riding community and assessed these trails properly, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

Instead, we get top-down decisions that alienate the very people who are the largest stakeholders in preserving these forests. Not to mention, this community is deeply rooted in counter-culture. I wish Metro all the best with its current plan; not sure they want that smoke.

Reply

syncro
+3 Andy Eunson Kristian Øvrum Bern Shmarv DancingWithMyself Lee Lau blacksheep

What we're asking for and how we're behaving are two different things tho. We can't talk positively about NN and yet ignore all the other stuff going on. It's cherry picking. There's two sides to this debate and it seems some people are only considering the side that matters to riders.

It might be reasonable to compare the effects KP brought up, but I disagree on comparing the importance of power line infrastructure that affects thousands of people on a daily basis to a that of a recreation trail when there are many other options to choose from in that regard.

I definitely want to see more trails and a greater variety of trails, but I don't feel that the justifications being put forward or at least the way they're being done are in our best interests.

Henry-Chinaski
+3 Lee Lau BeesIntheTrap Shmarv blacksheep Kristian Øvrum

I don't think it's “cherry picking” when we talk about NN. MV did that when they decided to target a relatively well-built trail, while ignoring the more problematic lines. If they had prioritized decommissioning the abandoned cobble-filled trenches, they referenced in the NS News article, that would have made sense. But they didn’t.

You keep making the argument that we can’t compare power line infrastructure to trails, but that’s a false equivalence. No one is saying power lines aren’t important. What we are saying is that MV is selectively enforcing environmental concerns when it comes to recreation while allowing other land disturbances with far greater impact. That’s not “whataboutism”, that’s holding Metro accountable for its contradictions.

You say we need to consider “both sides,” but that’s exactly what’s missing here: Metro Vancouver refuses to engage with riders or builders in any transparent way. They shut down trails without consultation, refuse to offer a pathway for new trails, and expect the riding community to accept these unilateral decisions without question. That’s not a fair process by a public organization, and that’s why people are fed up.

I think we can agree that we want more trails and more variety. The difference is you’re asking riders to play by a set of rules, while Metro refuses to do the same. Until they provide clear environmental assessments, transparent policies, and a real process for trail approval, this issue isn’t going away. In fact, I think they should have to rebuild what they tore out and apologize for their actions. That would be the smart thing to do.

syncro
+2 Andy Eunson Kristian Øvrum DancingWithMyself Lee Lau

It's cherry picking to talk about NN and ignore everything else. False equivalence is comparing two things that aren't equal, which would be comparing the totality of the power line infrastructure to a trail. The false equivalence is putting the trail on the same level as the power line.

Let's stop for a second and consider why Metro included NN as part of it's closures. Does anyone think it serves as a message about not building unsanctioned trails on the land they manage? That if people do that the consequence is the trail getting closed?

At the end of the day Metro is the land manger and they set the rules for the land they manage. One of those rules, which is pretty clear for anyone who's been involved in trail building or advocacy, is that we're not allowed to just go onto their land and cut a trail without their permission.

I'm suggesting that for the time being we play by the rules in place while working to change the rules to be more in our benefit. We know how to effect change (getting involved in the political arena), but not enough people are making that effort. My thinking is that pissing off the land manager by continuing to create a lot of unsanctioned trails is not going to benefit us in the quest to create more legitimate trails.

Henry-Chinaski
+4 grambo Lee Lau Jerry Willows BeesIntheTrap blacksheep Kristian Øvrum

Mark, we’re splitting hairs to some degree, and frankly, I’m happy to take an L as I’m guessing you’ve put shovel to dirt far more than I have in the last decade. To me, it’s very clear they are selectively enforcing rules.

When you’re a public institution, I think sending clear messages is an obligation. What message is Metro sending? That they’ll decommission trails without transparency, consultation, or environmental studies to back up their decisions? That there’s no legitimate pathway to creating new trails at all?

You’re suggesting the riding community “play by the rules,” but there are none. Following the rules only works when they are fair and when the people enforcing them are acting in good faith. Metro has given riders zero reason to believe either is true.

I don’t put enough time into the North Van riding community to have a say, but I definitely think there’s a time for resistance. Do you know what pisses off the land manager even more than unsanctioned trails?

A boatload of FOI requests!!

syncro
+2 Kristian Øvrum Shmarv

Henry I'm not disputing that Metro is not playing fair, I've had gripes/concerns over how they do things for a long time. However, we can't ignore that it's within their purview simply because they are the ones that manage the land. They set and control the rules. They've clearly said we can't just go building trails on the land they manage, that's a rule that can't be disputed.  The concern here should not be that we're not being dealt with fairly, the concern has to be how can we change the system we're stuck dealing with.

IMO the way to solve this is going to be through political pressure in the public sphere. Bring all these issues forward and maybe we can get some traction. But we have to be aware that in spite of the growth of mtb'ing we are still a relatively small user group in the grand scheme of everything that Metro oversees. So yes, lots of FOIs, lots of attending council/committee meetings and getting up to speak, and lots of letter writing to elected officials that have some influence. If there are enough of us that speak up and make it known that this is an important election issue for us, then come election time when politicians are looking for votes  by knowing that they can gain a block of votes by supporting the change we want that could be what gets our needs acknowledge. But we all have to be on board to make that happen.

Shmarv
0

I think the easy argument for the large-scale projects -- that they are for infrastructure projects that ultimately benefit much larger population and area -- is hard to argue with. It then becomes a "we need to do this thing", and "we need to minimize environmental impacts elsewhere to offset what we have to do."

I don't mean to say that any big projects should have a blind eye turned to let them go through, but it's a very easy argument to say "you're able to recreate elsewhere"

Lee-Lau
+12 Henry Chinaski Dave Smith grambo Couch_Surfer .glib Jerry Willows Mammal Kenny Sven SockPuppet BeesIntheTrap Shmarv Cam McRae Kristian Øvrum

Ken is right.  Allow me to also point out that when Metro attempts to decommission trails (and these decommissioning efforts are reversed shortly), they cut live trees, up-end logs into streams, dump nails into the bush and watercourses.  

Metro's environmental concerns are lipstick on a pig.  Excuses for that are apologist for Metro

Reply

Shmarv
0

This always drives me nuts -- decommisioning a trail in the name of environmental concerns, then leaving a wasteland of debris behind their (very costly) work.

There's an easily accessed, short trail in the Victoria area that the CRD had gone ahead and "decommissioned". They did so by using 8inch nails and positioning cut trees across the trail. How on earth is that an environmentally responsible way to do your work?

(Ultimately, the December wind storms did their part, and there are more fallen trees lying across the trail than you can count -- if the trail isn't the right place, then just have some patience, save your limited funds, and let mother nature do her thing).

Reply

gramm
+6 Jerry Willows Adrian White cedrico Velocipedestrian DancingWithMyself Cam McRae

Very well spoken, thanks for sharing Cam.

Reply

Lowcard
+6 Kenneth Perras Lee Lau Jotegir Henry Chinaski Shinook leon-forfar

I'm tired of the city/district/whomever claiming environmental reasons for shutting trails down. Let's not forget the massive parking lot they built on Fromme to accommodate vehicles. Environmental reasons are 100% bullshit because in reality, government doesn't actually care about the environment. This is a matter of control and not much else.

Why can't they operate this area like the Bike Ranch in Kamloops? That was an area that was being used illegally by mountain bikers until the city turned it into a public bike park. For 20 years now, the bike ranch has operated with funding from the city to cover operating costs and wages. For the amount of tax we pay, there is no reason why this can't happen on Seymour.

Reply

Kever
+5 Todd Hellinga Lee Lau mudhoney Shinook Mammal

I think your and Ken's argument is that the impact of trails is so much lower than other activities that we should be focusing our attention on those items rather than trails. 

I don't think the environmental impact argument is a red herring, I think there's some value in considering environmental impact in forest use. We should consider the environment and forest health while building and maintaining trails. There are better and worse methods and line choices when it comes to trail building. 

I also don't think building infrastructure with higher environmental impacts like parking lots or power lines suddenly makes it OK to build things with lower environmental impact like trails or pit toilets or picnic benches or whatever, wherever (not that I have a problem with any of these things, they are necessary for people to enjoy the outdoors, which it vitally important). 

Governments decided that the social benefit of parking lots and power lines outweighed the environmental impacts, so the infrastructure was built. I actually think I understand your argument better now. 

Why are the social benefits of trails rated so low that governments cannot justify the (relatively minor) environmental impacts? Perhaps the value proposition of unsanctioned trails is skewed because governments view builders and maintainers of these trails as bad actors. 

Ash Kelly tries to paint a picture of these trail stewards in a different light; as educated, passionate, knowledgeable, committed, and community minded, and shifts responsibility back to the land manager for failing to engage with these folks in any meaningful way.

Reply

Lee-Lau
+2 Mammal Shmarv

Kever is right.  So is Jotegir. That's the voice of experience Metro is indifferent to biking.  We mountain bikers are an inconvenience.   

We know Metro responds to bad PR.  Ash Kelly's interview, Cam's NSMB article, Kurt's petition and other articles have resulted in bad PR.  Metro's attention span is miniscule.  They lashed out at NN for reasons known only to them (and it's not the farcical environmental argument).  

Send more bad PR their way and Metro will return to status quo of absenteeism with occasional flurries of look-at-me I'm so good, I threw some money at trails I've ignored for a decade.

The person in charge of the decomm at Metro is junior mid management.  This occupies 0.1 of their time and is devolved to yet even more unmotivated field ops.    

Having said that, can't hurt to play Metro's game as they go into bureaucratese cover your ass mode with consultation, workshops, third party consultants blah blah blah.... all to generate reports they will then ignore.   The cycle of life will continue

Reply

Jotegir
+8 Lee Lau Graham Driedger Shinook Lowcard Mammal SockPuppet BeesIntheTrap Shmarv

I can confirm environmental reasons are 100% bullshit for governments. I've seen it a number of times in my practice so far (vaguely land related litigator). It's all rules for thee and none for me. Private entity wants to build next to a stream? Better worry about those riparian setbacks, and don't you dare violate streamside and slope regulations by removing trees on the slope or at the stream. Want to pave into that swamp? No way! Think you can put some other land into a conservation easement to make up for this land? Not a chance!*

Oh wait, we want to build on that land now. Ok, we'll expropriate it from you for cents on the dollar (because you definitely aren't allowed to build on it so it's not worth what you think it is; oh also we control the building permit process), but look, we cut all the trees down beside the stream, built the building within the riparian setback, and filled in and paved the wetland. But it was okay, because we dedicated a park elsewhere (we didn't put a conservation easement or similar on it because we might want to develop it later). And you can't get mad that even our own reports said it would be bad for wildlife, because it was a political decision. Your remedy is at the ballot box. 

*for clarity, I'm not advocating for private enterprises to be able to violate riparian setbacks, streamside regulations, pave swamps, etc,

Reply

Shmarv
+1 joedirt

I think environmental concerns are a valid argument, but I agree they're not applied in a logical manner. Any alteration to the natural landscape is going to have tradeoffs -- societal benefits vs. ecological harms -- and it's a matter of deciding what negative impacts are worthwhile in the greater scope of ALL projects that need to be done.

That being said, if you're taking action in the name of the environment, then you should be doing your work that suggests you actually care about it -- leaving debris in streams and hardware in the forest is a bit telling that you're motivations are elsewhere.

Reply

syncro
-1 Kristian Øvrum DancingWithMyself Lee Lau leon-forfar Shmarv

Good interview, but she doesn't paint what I would call an entirely accurate picture on a few points.

Reply

Gdreej
+4 Stephen Norman Konrad Lee Lau Shmarv

Care to share what that may be?

Reply

syncro
+4 gramm ShawMac taprider DanL Kristian Øvrum DancingWithMyself Lynx . Lee Lau

Sure!

The first thing that popped up for me was when she said she didn't really buy the environmental argument. Now I can see how that might seem to make sense with a trail like NN, but as Todd pointed out in the other thread there are enviro concerns that we may not be all that perceptive about because we're so focused on enjoying the trail or the quality of the trail bed we're riding on. 

The other part of the enviro argument is that Metro is speaking to all the trails. So we see some unsanctioned trails/zones that are a nightmare while some other might not see that way on the surface. I don't think it's fair to cherry pick one well done trail and say the enviro argument doesn't apply while ignoring all the other ones that do have issues at the same time.

In the same light she dismissed the idea of these trails being far out there, when in the case of SJ we know that to not be true. The same can be said for some other trails that have been shut down. Here again she cherry picked NN as being right next to a main line like Ned's while ignoring the idea of further out there trails. 

I thought that in general she downplayed the concerns expressed by Metro. 

Why does that matter? 

Well people that want to limit mtb trails will take positions like that and say that mtb'ers are ignoring or dismissing legitimate concerns, so if they can't be honest about what's happening why should any land manger agree to work with them. IMHO we have to frame arguments for better access in a manner that does not leave them open to easy rebuttal or refusal. We see that interview as a great thing because we feel it represents our concerns, but if we pull the lens back are we being honest with ourselves about how we do things?

The best thing we can do is be active. Whether that's attending trail days, buying trail org memberships, writing letters to government agencies or attending council/committee meetings, we have to be the loud voice in the room if we want to get our concerns heard and met. This means that everyone who rides has to make an effort. Seeing as we don't pay to ride the trails and most people don't do the actual work of building the trails, the avg rider HAS to contribute in other manners.

Reply

Kever
+2 Kenneth Perras Shmarv

Ideally Metro would target the most damaged/damaging lines for decommissioning, the ones they identified as abandoned cobble-filled trenches in the NS News article. I wouldn't even be opposed to the NSMBA helping with decommissioning of those lines if it meant more and better trails in the future. 

I think the argument against decommissioning New Normal is that the trail was well built and just as sustainable as any professionally built line, not to mention fun to ride. Several trails/zones were named, but this trail was the first to go for some reason.

While a singletrack trail certainly has less impact that a 3-5m wide access road, the impact is more than zero. Ash Kelly mentioned she would like to see evidence of environmental impacts. I see the value in this. However, we also do not know what environmental assessment work has already been done. I assume at least one assessment has been completed per trail slated for decomissioning, which would have been a guiding factor in Metro Vancouver's decision to close several trails. Inquiring minds should be able to get their hands on Metro Vancouver emails and environmental studies on these trails. I imagine that Metro Vancouver would not have made a claim of environmental impact unless they had substantial research to back that claim up.

Reply

syncro
+2 Kristian Øvrum Shmarv DancingWithMyself Lee Lau

I agree with that and am not saying that NN should have gotten the chop. However, this is about more than just one trail and Metro probably sees its decommissioning as a deterrent message as much as anything else. It could also just be egos and them saying  "Hey, if you're not going to play by the rules then we're taking your toys away."

For the short run I think the best that can happen is this gets the community fired up enough that enough voices speak out and spark some action in favour of what we'd like to see happen for the future.

Reply

Henry-Chinaski
+3 Lee Lau Graham Driedger Shmarv blacksheep Kristian Øvrum

Yep, where’s the actual evidence?

Ash Kelly made a great point: if Metro Vancouver is making these claims, there should be clear, documented environmental impact assessments backing them up. Has anyone seen one? If they exist, they should be made public. If they don’t exist, that’s a big goddamn problem.

Has anyone filed a Freedom of Information request to get access to Metro Vancouver’s internal studies, reports, and emails regarding New Normal and Iceland. If Metro has done legitimate environmental assessments, we can all see the data and judge for ourselves. If they haven’t, then their argument for trail removal is garbage.

Reply

Shmarv
0

> The first thing that popped up for me was when she said she didn't really buy the environmental argument. Now I can see how that might seem to make sense with a trail like NN, but as Todd pointed out in the other thread there are enviro concerns that we may not be all that perceptive about because we're so focused on enjoying the trail or the quality of the trail bed we're riding on.

If one of your main arguments is environmental concern, then why was NN one of the first trails addressed?

You're right in that we probably aren't aware of the entire scope of environmental concerns or local micro-geographical implications of the trails that were dug, but if MV says it's a problem when it very much seemed like it wasn't (in this case), then they need to help educate the voting public why that is.

> The other part of the enviro argument is that Metro is speaking to all the trails. So we see some unsanctioned trails/zones that are a nightmare while some other might not see that way on the surface. I don't think it's fair to cherry pick one well done trail and say the enviro argument doesn't apply while ignoring all the other ones that do have issues at the same time.

Perhaps, but if environmental concerns are truly the motivating factor, then why did MV staff leave the trails in an environmental mess, leaving hardware and debris strewn about and obstructing natural water flow? 

Again, if you're saying you're doing X because of Y, then you can't ignore Y when "fixing" things.

> In the same light she dismissed the idea of these trails being far out there, when in the case of SJ we know that to not be true. The same can be said for some other trails that have been shut down. Here again she cherry picked NN as being right next to a main line like Ned's while ignoring the idea of further out there trails.

Perhaps, but only so much that can be said in a 13 minute radio segment. And again, if remote unsanctioned trails were the main concern, then she simply chose an example that demonstrated a lack of consistency with the logic.

> I thought that in general she downplayed the concerns expressed by Metro.

Yes, because as others have said in more detail, and I have a bit above, it's because MV's actions are inconsistent with their justification for said actions. And if we go on feelings, it certainly feels like MV is taking a finger-wagging, bullying approach to exert their strength in a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. But that's another story...

> Why does that matter?
> Well people that want to limit mtb trails will take positions like that and say that mtb'ers are ignoring or dismissing legitimate concerns, so if they can't be honest about what's happening why should any land manger agree to work with them. IMHO we have to frame arguments for better access in a manner that does not leave them open to easy rebuttal or refusal. We see that interview as a great thing because we feel it represents our concerns, but if we pull the lens back are we being honest with ourselves about how we do things?

I agree with the points you make, but I'm not sure if it was the purpose of what she shared. She was trying to explain how MV hasn't engaged with the riding community as a whole, and it was choosing to only engage with an organization that is inherently vulnerable because of the power dynamics that exist. You're correct in that efforts to sway MV needs to take a bit of a soft approach and to massage a few egos here and there, and convince them the riding community wants to help them fulfill their mandates, but at the same time, if there's no response of criticism to the heavy-handed actions that were taken, then MV goes on acting in a manner that fails to respect the riding community. MV needs to feel they need the riding community to at least be a little on their side, and that the individual members of it may face personal consequence otherwise (just talking about jobs and press, not direct action).

> The best thing we can do is be active. Whether that's attending trail days, buying trail org memberships, writing letters to government agencies or attending council/committee meetings, we have to be the loud voice in the room if we want to get our concerns heard and met. This means that everyone who rides has to make an effort. Seeing as we don't pay to ride the trails and most people don't do the actual work of building the trails, the avg rider HAS to contribute in other manners.

Complete agreement here -- as uncomfortable as it can feel, we need to communicate with MV in a way they hear us, and make them feel the longstanding policy of ignoring will create more problems than what's worth it.

Reply

Stephen.namron
0

This comment has been removed.

Please log in to leave a comment.