
Editorial
Seymour Trail Closures Announced
Mountain bikers on the North Shore recently learned, through an open letter sent by the NSMBA's* executive director, Deanne Cote, that Metro Vancouver, the organization that manages much of the land on Mount Seymour, will begin actively decommissioning several popular, well built and maintained, but unauthorized, trails. According to the letter, this is justified by, "ensuring that all new trails are approved prior to construction." There is a little problem with that. Metro Vancouver has never to my knowledge approved the construction of a new mountain bike trail, nor do they have any advertised process for doing so.
*For those of you from outside of North Van, while the name NSMBA is almost identical to NSMB.com, and we have worked together many times over the years, NSMB.com has always been a digital publication while the NSMBA has always been a trail advocacy organization and we are entirely separate organizations.

Iceland is another trail that is well-built and entirely sustainable, and built by one of the best builders on the Shore. It's also mostly made of rock. Photo - Mike Wallace
It's all a bit disingenuous; "we're tearing down your trails because you didn't ask us, but you can't ask us, and even if you did, we'd say no." Of the trails listed, for many, the most disturbing action is the decommissioning of New Normal, a sustainable, popular and well-built line that was actively maintained. The trail bed was well constructed, much of it was built on rock and it was engaging and fun. Unfortunately this process has already begun with bridges and other features destroyed and debris scattered on the trail. Worse still, according to an article in the North Shore News, Metro Vancouver, "has pre-emptively declared that, because it was built without permission, New Normal will be fully decommissioned and never added to the authorized trail network." This doesn't strike me as brilliant, since that's the only way any trails have been added to the authorized trail network before this.
Joseph Heller would be proud of this perfect Catch 22. It's like a club where the only way to become a member is to sneak in uninvited, but if you get caught sneaking in, you are thrown out and barred from ever joining. Or a jail where you are told you'll be released if you don't try to escape, but then the key is secretly thrown away.
In the same North Shore news article, Heidi Walsh, who is the director of watershed and environmental management for Metro, concedes that more trails are needed but adds, "It's just not our mandate to be the best mountain bike trail network around." She then added, "And any time we’re spending decommissioning trails is time we’re taking away from building and maintaining trails.”
Those trails that have never been built by Metro? It's possible they consider rebuilding trails like Ned's and CBC "building trails" but those are also trails that were never authorized to begin with. To my knowledge, Metro has ever undertaken the build of a new trail in the LSCR. There have been rebuilds and short re-routes, but only involving longstanding and established trails that were built without authorization.

"Metro Vancouver is a federation of 21 municipalities (seen above), one electoral area, and one treaty First Nation that collaboratively plans for and delivers regional-scale services." For those of you in other countries, think of it as a political grouping that is larger than a city, and smaller than a province. In many places, this would be called a county but in B.C. we call them "Regional Districts." While there are elected city councillors and mayors on the boards within the Metro Vancouver structure (like the Water Committee, which governs the LSCR land on Seymour), no one is elected solely to be part of a regional district. This often seems to allow them operate like little kingdoms unto themselves, beholden to nobody, despite being funded by our tax dollars.
We've had it pretty good as mountain bikers in British Columbia, and particularly on the North Shore where we have had an incredible selection of trails for a very long time. We have enjoyed mostly unrestricted access to these trails virtually all of which were built by volunteer labour. It's hard to think of a single trail on the North Shore that was originally planned and executed by anyone other than some mountain bikers with buckets and shovels. One that comes to mind is Lower Expresso on Mount Fromme, which was approved before construction by the District of North Vancouver, and you can add the climbing trail network on that side of the mountain as well. There may be a section or two I'm not remembering, but it's certainly not many.
Otherwise, every single now-sanctioned trail was unauthorized at the time it was originally built, going back to the 1980s. Counting only trails that I believe were mostly built for mountain bikes originally, there are 39 trails on Seymour, 46 on Fromme (also referred to as Grouse) and 21 on Cypress. I'm not suggesting all of these trails are now here in perpetuity, particularly on Cypress, but they aren't under immediate threat.

New Normal. Lots of rock. Well-built. Sustainable. Photos - Deniz Merdano

More New Normal. More Rock.
Rogue(!) Trail Building*
There is of course a parallel network of trails that exists on the periphery. These have always been around but in the past it was sometimes possible to keep a secret. Other times there was no need to keep a secret. A code existed though and was understood by many riders; show, don't tell, walk in and walk out when appropriate, and, more recently, no maps and no apps.
*I prefer the term unsanctioned
As the riding population has grown, and more and more riders from other parts of the world have come to Vancouver to live, specifically because of the mountain bike trails, that message has become diluted to the point of meaninglessness. Social media and various mapping software has further accelerated this trend. Gotta get those likes man.
Unauthorized trails, called loamers by riders, have become more widespread in recent years. There was a renegade building boom during COVID that paralleled the increased participation in our sport and it hasn't slowed down much since. These trails come in many flavours. Some are as well built and sustainable as long-established lines that are maintained by the our local advocacy organization; The aforementioned NSMBA.
One reason these trails are so popular is that they often offer an experience that is distinct from what you might find in the legitimate network. They are sometimes more challenging, with features that land managers may not approve of. They often, at least at first, have a softer, organic trail surface (referred to as loam) and in the past they regularly included built structures leading to drops, gaps and skinnies, although these are much less common now. They often meet a need as well, either for the growing demand for trails in general, because they provide a useful connection between trails, or because of the unique riding experiences I mentioned earlier.
There is another side to what the land managers refer to as "rogue building" however, that paints mountain bikers in nasty light. These are the trails that are inexpertly scratched in with little consideration of drainage, alignment or sustainability.* We all acknowledge that these are a problem and most riders would like to find a solution. It's possible to imagine a world where mountain bikers are partners in this effort, but it's unlikely to happen when the land manager takes hasty action with no consultation of the ridership.
*It's important to realize these are not the same builders who build trails like New Normal and Iceland.

Image - Nigel Quarless
To make some sense of this situation, I interviewed four members of the mountain bike community who have all been involved in the scene for a long time. Two have worked and/or volunteered at the NSMBA, one is a bike shop owner who has been riding here for thirty years and has organized races and met with the land managers many times, and the third is a longstanding, talented and well respected rider who supports trail builders with his art projects. Each one had something meaningful to say about the situation.

A well-constructed bridge on New Normal that was sawed in half and tossed into the woods by Metro Vancouver workers.
Cooper Quinn - Former President of the NSMBA
As someone who has given very generously of his time to lobby for the trails, I wanted to ask Cooper about what it feels like to be criticized by riders who don't agree with the strategy or messaging that comes from the NSMBA.
"When you're working on that stuff, I think the riding community needs to remember that the NSMBA is built of people who are loving or very passionate about riding bikes too. So much so that those people skip riding bikes a lot of the time to work on doing all of the nitty gritty stuff we just talked about to try and hopefully better the riding experience for everyone and themselves.
And how many folks that are upset now about the changes were involved in the LSCR trail strategic plan in 2018, that is laying the foundation for some of what we've seen here. And how many of those folks actually know that the NSMBA's input changed some of that plan for the good of the community. And also that Metro has now disregarded significant parts of that based on input from the association and the community. That's the result of good hard work behind the scenes that isn't fun. It isn't sexy. It's hammered out in boardrooms and shitty emails, but that's the hard work you have to get done. The local trail association is the only real way that can happen."
The other trails that we just discussed, you know, at CBC, the zone in there is just, it's a little too flat to drain. It's a little bit too organic. Even CBC has just struggled all along. And that's why it's basically a Roman road top to bottom and maybe not the trail experience people are looking for anymore. But if you're a land manager, I think Metro struggles sometimes, as they all do, to differentiate between those two different types of unsanctioned trails.
I also asked Cooper about the NSMBA's response to this situation.
"The association needs to remember that it is beholden to the riding community. That is why it exists. That is who it is exists for. And without the riding community support, there's no point. And the riding community needs to remember that the NSMBA is, generally speaking, trying to do its best to support the riding community in the way that it best sees fit. But the association's response to me was missing a call to action."

Nigel Quarless in the zone. Photo - Dave Smith
Nigel Quarless - Rider/Artist
I asked Nigel what he thought of the response to this issue by the NSMBA.
"The follow-up article in the North Shore News, I feel it was a bit of a misstep. It was a little too negative and it felt like it was more a venting of frustration than really dealing with the issue. And I think in particular it should have played up and talked more about the upsides of some of these unsanctioned trails. Obviously not all of them. I couldn't defend all of the building that goes on out there. Certainly some of it isn't sustainable and isn't necessary, but those trails in particular were solid trails,* well built, really good additions to the network. "
Many other unsanctioned trails are really well used and sustainable and appreciated by a much broader user base than just mountain bikers. A lot of dog walkers and hikers and trail runners happily share the trails with us as well and appreciate the work that we do. So I think it was a misstep to not mention the positive benefit to all trail users. And it could have been less divisive. I feel like it kind of set up all the rogue builders and trail users as an entirely negative aspect of the community when there are quite a few positives as well."
*Those on the list to be decommissioned

Cynthia Young - Former NSMBA Board Member/Employee and current Trail Builder
I asked Cynthia what she thought the likely outcome this action would be.
"Metro Vancouver' who manages this area, it's wasting their time and money. I've seen this movie before. Metro has tried to shut down trails before but I don't think they understand just how persistent mountain bikers are. They will go out there and remove logs or they'll go build something else. And then you've got even more damage to the environment. My opinion has always been that we need to give people a positive alternative. That goes with so many things in life, but I think with rogue building, you really need to give people a positive alternative. Like if you want to build a trail, there's gotta be a legitimate process for that, that people can apply, they can submit an application, submit a proposal for a trail to be built and then go through the process. And that currently doesn't exist really with any of our local land managers"

James Wilson's dog Roo, is particularly fond of New Normal.
James Wilson - Owner of Obsession:Bikes, Race Organizer, Passionate Rider
I asked James whether he thought there was a solution to this issue that might satisfy both parties.
"You're not going to get anywhere until Metro changes their stand on what the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve is. Until they recognize that Metro has 2.7 million people in it, and that chunk of land is essentially park land and it should by that be operated as a park… Until they get that in their head, we're gonna have a hard time getting anything done.
The lower Seymour Conservation Reserve is run by the Metro Vancouver. And Metro Vancouver has a paid official whose job it is to manage the service management department of the organization, and those lands fall under it. And so there doesn't seem to be a big push to operate that area as a park.
We're trying to live in our community and engage in a sport that is incredible for physical health and mental and emotional health. I don't want to play hockey anymore. My body can't put up with that, but I can still ride a bike. So why am I being limited, why am I the bad guy here?
They know, the trail inventory is too small. It's not being managed. And when they do try to manage it, they just come in with a big axe, chop a bunch of shit down and push it out onto the trail, which then pushes people into other lines. There's no attempt whatsoever to embrace and engage with the ridership. And they've got the NSMBA by the throat, so there's no way in the world the NSMBA can lay down any sort of pressure. And so of course it's up to the people to do something about it. The riders have to do something about it, because it's the riders that are getting jacked on this thing."

More New Normal. More excellent drainage and rock. Photo - Deniz Merdano
The Call To Action
I'd like to ask for your help.
You've likely heard that mountain biking has an important financial impact on the North Shore community. Health, fitness and sanity benefits don't always get people in government fired up, but cash does. In 2016 the direct benefits in terms of salaries from mountain biking on the North Shore was 4.3M. I would be very surprised if that hasn't doubled nine years later. If you add other economic impacts like hotel and restaurant visits, the impact is certainly vastly greater.
Those numbers depend on great trails. Government rarely builds great trails. They follow rules and listen to lawyers. So much so that, sometimes, even when they hire skilled trailbuilders, their hands are tied and the results are lack lustre. Great trails are essential to the North Shore, for the residents of the South Coast of B.C. and for visitors the world over who want to come here.
It is my position that using taxpayer's dollars to destroy beautiful well-built trails without any consultation of the riding community is a terrible mistake. It's also unlikely to produce the result Metro Vancouver is looking for. I will agree that to some degree the proliferation of unsanctioned trails, in some forms and in some locations, is a problem that should be addressed, but this heavy handed strategy will most likely make the problem worse.
In order to curb rogue building and inform riders of sustainable practices, we'll need to be in this together. Treating us like the enemy will just pour gas on the fire.
This is where you come in, wherever you live. The elected officials you see listed below are members of the Metro Vancouver Water Committee, which oversees the LSCR, where trails like New Normal, Iceland, and Orleans, are located. Each is well made and sustainable, and maintained by skilled, creative and diligent volunteers, and should be spared the axe.
My request is this; If the trails on the North Shore mean something to you, please write a letter to one, several, or all of the representatives on that list and tell them. Let them know that you think destroying well-built trails is a waste of taxpayer's money, and that it's likely to create environmental damage by displacing riders and encouraging them to do their work deeper in the woods.
If you have come here to visit and to ride our trails, or if you plan to, your voice is particularly important. Canadians hate it when the rest of the world thinks we are being unfriendly. If you live in Metro Vancouver, choose the representative from your municipality, but feel free to cc several others. And I'd love it if you cc'ed me [email protected].
Thank you!
In the words of Margaret Mead, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has."

Does this look like a trail that should be destroyed to you? Photo Deniz Merdano
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, Paul – 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 – Burnaby 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]
Comments
Lee Lau
4 weeks ago
Keep your expectations low. You won't be disappointed. This goes for Metro and also for the NSMBA
Reply
Jerry Willows
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I'm going to Costco to grab some popcorn on this one....
Reply
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 6 days ago
🍿 🍿 🍿
Reply
Deniz Merdano
3 weeks, 6 days ago
We are not satisfied until you are not satisfied.... Or something like that
Reply
Trogdor
3 weeks, 6 days ago
We aren't happy until you are unhappy.
-Metro Van
Be a great t shirt no?
Reply
AndrewR
3 weeks, 5 days ago
The trouble is that you can set your expectations to 'low' and still come away disappointed.
Reply
Sven
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Hello Heidi, Mayor Little, and Metro Vancouver commitee members.
I have personally worked in 2014 with Metro Vancouver on Sanctioned NSMBA TAP trail High School League, providing 179 free labour hours leading 37 volunteers, and also been the victim of Metro Vancouver's Cambodia decommissioning work before it was finally sanctioned with big fanfare in 2024 - only 11 years after I received the great news that Metro wants to accept Cambodia and Lola (now also decommissioned, see below).
I must say the recent poor Metro Van decision to tear out long standing, popular and well built and maintained Iceland, New Normal, Jankritaville, and Orleans is heart breaking and a heavy handed overreaction to a proliferation of Pandemic driven rogue trailbuilding "rake & ride" elsewhere on the mountain. Metro has decommissioned these 4 trails into a higher danger risk level, as well as increased environmental damage. You're right - it's a terrible waste of tax payers resources.
I personally made a decision to never volunteer or work on Metro Vancouver LSCR land since the original Cambodia decommissioning, and focused my efforts for more than 12 years on another Seymour trail Team Pangor together with DNV District Parks management, who were far more cooperative and receptive to work with. Totaling more than 3511 hours of volunteer labour, I know DNV got the most bang for their (not needed) buck, with my leadership funded by local bike industry and volunteers. I will also admit to 8 years prior as a rogue trailbuilder on the same Team Pangor, before sanctioning was even a word.
Imagine the possibilities if only these higher level LSCR trails were sanctioned like Cambodia now is. Riders will always be looking for the next challenge. The riders who also build will make it happen, sanctioned or not.
DNV Parks - Pangor volunteer TAP hours: (insert table with 3511 hours over 12 years)
The mtb trail building community is here to support Metro Vancouver, should you choose to support us. I fear it too late.
Thank you for reading,
Sven L, P.Eng.
NSMBA TAP Builder, Pangor 2011-2024
Volunteer Rogue builder on Pangor 2005-2013
North Vancouver
PS - please feel free to sign the petition below in support! Or better yet, vote at Metro meetings with your taxpayers and voters in mind.
-------------------
From: Mark W
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:37 AM
To: Mathew B; Matt P; Wade S; Sven L; Chris B
Subject: Lola/Cambodia
Metro has looked at these trails and want to accept them officially. This is good.
This includes signage that will lessen liability by stating "dbl black: Experts only, ride at your own risk".
They are willing to accept the gaps, the steep & gnarly bits, basically 90% of the trails.
Reply
Sven
3 weeks, 4 days ago
PS - for those not in the know, Mark W was the NSMBA trail work lead at the time.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
3 weeks, 3 days ago
Sven: thanks for posting this. Thanks for writing it. And thanks for all the hard (mostly thankless) work over the years.
Reply
rcybak
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Metro Vancouver is funded by taxpayers. That means they are beholden to us, not the other way around. I have 7 years of experience subcontracting to Metro Van, and one thing I have seen work to get positive action from them is complaining from the public. They don't want any scrutiny on their practices, because then their overpaid incompetence inevitably comes to light. The suggestion of emailing and phoning is a good one, and the more passionate, but respectful, we can be, the better. This decision to decommission trails has, largely, nothing to do with Metro Van's mandate with the parks they look after, but is probably because an anti-mountain bike type complained to them. And, as I've seen before, it can be the result that one complaint evokes a response like this. Metro Van employees, no matter how overpaid and underqualified they are, are just like the rest of us. They don't want to deal with something unexpected that upsets their work routine, so when something does, they over react. I will conclude by reiterating that the government works for us, and they are not in place to tell us what to do, but to protect our rights. Make sure to remind them of this when you write or call.
Reply
Couch_Surfer
3 weeks, 6 days ago
> Heidi Walsh then added, "And any time we’re spending decommissioning trails is time we’re taking away from building and maintaining trails.”
And how long did it take Metro Van's crack team of trail maintainers to re-build the washout on Fisherman's Trail? Multiple years of 'closure' signs when they could have partnered with NSMB and had it fixed in a weekend?
What a joke of an organization. Fire the lot of them, they're a waste of tax dollars.
Reply
Brad Nyenhuis
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I was president of the local mtb club in Los Alamos, New Mexico for several years. At that point we had a USFS that was completely unresponsive to any trailbuilding requests (they had no problem with asking us for help in maintenance, however) even though we would be completely funding each potential project.
Then I started getting calls from them, complaining about, let's call it, "undocumented" trailbuilding. They wanted my help in curtailing this action.
My reply was simple. You can stop this overnight. Just start working WITH us, instead of against us.
Whether it's rogue trails or dumping tea into a harbor; if a government refuses to represent it's constituents, these constituents will rebel. It's as American as apple pie.
But wait, you're in Canada, right?
Sorry
Years ago, I read a great story in Bike Magazine about how Sedona became the mecca it is now (I believe it was one of the Bible of Bike Test issues). For years tension between a heavy-handed Forest Service and riders/builders kept escalating to the point of actual violence. It took a new FS Manager, who took the novel approach of working with the local riding community, to completely change that environment into the awesomeness they have now.
Sometimes, it only takes one change.
Reply
DirtSnow
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I wanted to remain optimistic to the work that NSMBA does in advocacy and education regarding the needs of the community. This CBC audio segment has me concerned - the messaging is confusing and worrying.
CBC Audio Clip from January 21
I’m worried that vigilante enforcement may put a rider at risk. This could create a dangerous situation, particularly on trails that may see less traffic due to this very public conflict.
I feel that this is an odd battle for the current times. In my recent and various experiences on trails, the tension amongst various trail user groups seems low. Folks seem to understand the balance that keeps us all outdoors and a lot of that comes from a bit of self imposed ethics demonstrated through positive behaviour and kindness to other users.
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I can't speak to NSMBA, but a lot of trail orgs in my observation have become secondhand extensions of the land managers. In a lot of places I'm involved or follow, they seem more concerned about being the right arm of the gov't/managerial staff than they do advocating for bikes. In their mind, advocacy is doing trail work dictated by the land manager, not actually advocating for bikes. In one case, the president of a SORBA group wasn't even a mountain biker.
One of our loamers was shut down by advocacy groups, if that tells you who they represent. It seems to be a general trend that these "advocacy" orgs are being taken over by the same bureaucrat that operate the land agencies.
Reply
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 6 days ago
In answer to your question, the NSMBA has become an advocate and apologist for Metro
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Figures, that's what happened here with our "advocacy" group and the local forest rangers. They've historically seemed more interested in being the hands and feet of rangers than advocating for bikes.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 6 days ago
It’s interesting that she is the person speaking for the organization when she is a paid employee. Why isn’t the president speaking for the organization?
It seems she hasn’t found many opportunities to speak about the positive elements of mountain biking - and trail building. I’m also surprised she hasn’t challenged Metro for saying they will only allow authorized builds of new trails, when they have never given the green light for any new trails, and considering there isn’t even a process to get a trail pre-authorized.
To me this isn’t rocket science.
The NSMBA works for the membership but I haven’t heard the membership represented by most comments about this issue. I have heard of several riders tearing up their membership cards though, which is very sad indeed.
Reply
Shmarv
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Wait... What? I'm hoping she misspoke, and she only intended to share that the NSMBA listens to and considers dog walkers and hikers and trail runners (particularly because much of the membership fits into those groups). But you were elected to the North Shore MOUNTAIN BIKING Association! FFS, if you don't realize advocating for mountain bikers is your mandate, then you're not the right person. Again, I hope this was a mistake on her part... I hope she didn't clearly articulate what she intended to say. But the MB is a pretty important distinction. Dog walkers, trail runners, and hikers are all welcome to either form their own groups, or to join the NSMBA and petition to change the group name to the North Shore Trail User Association - until then, sorry Deanna, bikes are your priority!
Reply
Lynx .
3 weeks, 5 days ago
That woman clearly does not belong in that job, seriously, it's right there in the name the group she is supposed to represent North Shore Mountain Bike Association, but she clearly has no such interest in this group it would seem. Maybe it was her idea of "playing up" all the other user groups who also use the trails, but didn't come across as such how she stated it.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@DirtSnow I agree that her choice of words could have been better, but it's not accurate to suggest that mtb's are no longer the focus of the NSMBA and imo a bit outrageous to suggest they were a call to action to endanger riders. This comments sounds like it comes from someone who isn't really aware of the difficulties in dealing with Metro when it comes to the trail network. I agree the NSMBA could be doing some things betters, but the main problem here is Metro's lack of consideration for the mtb community AND the mtb community itself. If we're going to sling arrows let's make sure they're going in the right direction.
Reply
DirtSnow
3 weeks, 3 days ago
@Mark
Heard. You’re totally right.
Reviewed my comment and made some edits. Totally agree, the problem lies with Metro mismanagement and a process that doesn’t work. While I disagree with the recent general PR campaign, I do recognize the tremendous work that NSMBA and their staff do. However still concerned over potential for trail vigilantism due to the recent media response. I don’t want to read about any injuries due to sabotage/decommissioning.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 3 days ago
@ DirtSnow - thanks brother. I do agree that people should be concerned but I'm simply asking that they be realistic with what they are saying and to put that concern to good use via the ways that have been suggested.
Reply
YallaNV
3 weeks, 6 days ago
NN has since been haphazardly reopened by an inexperienced “trail maintainer”. The trail is now incredibly dangerous with incomplete transitions, sketchy exposed roots, rocks and inexistant berms where a berm is required. Oh, and the bridges are flipped upside down on the side of the trail with exposed nails ready to catch you when you ride off piste.
Now Metro has a liability on their hands. Now Metro has increased the probability of injury on their land. Now Metro has a trail that will turn into a river and cause significant environmental damage.
If you ride and never participate in maintenance, you are part of the problem.
Doing so once per year for a social post or to tell your friends you raked a dark side trail one time last year doesn’t count
Pick up a shovel and contribute.
Reply
AndrewR
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Or calculate your annual kilometres and donate a $1 per kilometre ridden so that a professional can build it and maintain it to recognisable and sustainable standards.
Reply
.glib
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Donate to who exactly? Clearly not Metro, apparently not the NSMBA. Maybe directly to NSMB (no A) in this case and (from my understanding) they could probably figure out how to get the money to the person(s) maintaining NN.
Maybe I should donate $1/km to a private detective who can try to find this 'process' for getting new trails built that Metro is referring to - lord knows no one else seems to be able to find it.
Reply
Pete Roggeman
3 weeks, 3 days ago
No, no, not to us - although we'll have some pretty cool t-shirts soon if you're interested ;)
Look, the NSMBA is the organization we have here to represent our interests on the trails. The way forward is to make sure your/our voices are all heard there, and support them. They are almost all unpaid, they are working their asses off, and it's hard work that comes with a lot of difficulty and altogether not enough acclaim. This is an unfortunate incident but they're listening and learning. If you follow their track record over the years, their fiscal management is excellent.
Reply
Kenny
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I'd also argue though that if every person who rides the shore more than a handful of times a year, did one trail day a year, there'd be more volunteers than we know what to do with.
If 1x a year is what you can do, do it.
Reply
.glib
3 weeks, 5 days ago
The last trail day I showed up to had most of the "know what they're doing" builders chatting about their own "rogue trails" within an hour or two. We all know these are not separate groups - the people who dig, dig on both sides of the imaginary 'legal' line just like they always have (and did before 'legal' even existed).
Reply
Kenny
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Of course. All of the more reason for "occasional" trail helpers to pitch in on official trail days.
Reply
YallaNV
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Every mountain biker in the early 2000s spent time building features, stunts, slapping jumps. It was just part of the culture.
If you rode, you also dug. The same way you would help clear off the local ODR hockey rink after a snowfall or after a few hours of pickup. Hell, the same way you clean your kitchen after cooking a meal.
This isn’t golf (yet). There’s no club fees to maintain the greens.
If you aren’t participating or contributing in improving or cleaning up trails, you are part of the issue.
Reporting a downed tree on Trailforks doesn’t count. Buy yourself a handsaw or borrow a gas saw.
Trails are loose in the summer? Your next opportunity to ride should be a rake walk.
Big rainfall announced, go prep the drains.
Either way, the worst culprits aren’t on NSMB or PB, and won’t read this article or comment section.
If just there were a trail advocacy group who could help spread the word.
Reply
Dave Smith
3 weeks, 6 days ago
It took the better part of 20 years for Cambodia to be adopted into the network after years of being everyone's favourite secret trail that was in a perpetual state of short-sighted decommissioning and stubborn reopening by a lot of different builders.
New Normal is on the same path.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Strangely, our local Newspaper, the North Shore News, is more progressive and supportive of mountain biking, and this issue, than our local trail association.
Editorial: The blame is shared in North Shore mountain bike trail conflicts
I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in supporting mountain bike trails on the North Shore to comment on this article. While this is a small publication, it is main stream media, and that will get Metro's attention.
I tried to comment but my confirmation email never arrived. I will give it another go later.
Reply
Lynx .
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Check your spam folder Cam, that's where my confirmation e-mail went.
Reply
taprider
3 weeks, 6 days ago
My comment to the editorial
“Downhill mountain biking”? An unfortunate sub-categorization*. What about uphill mountain bikers, cross-hill mountain bikers, and all the other user groups like hikers, dogs, and trail runners that use and make “rogue” trails? To protect ecologically and culturally sensitive areas means banning all user groups from these areas. There would need to be a high wall, with razor wire, large signs and 24/7 guards to prevent the 100,000s of people wanting to access the mountains. Such a wall would likely be as successful as the measures to keep cliff jumpers out of Lynn Canyon, and would be a huge expense for the tax payers (but might keep the bears out of residents' garbage).
If trails are decommissioned or closed, it doesn’t take much time or effort to scratch out ecologically irresponsible fall-line loamers (which initially don’t take much effort or skill to ride). Whereas, the North Shore has many trail builders with the skill, time and knowledge to build aesthetically pleasing, skill challenging, sustainable and ecologically sensitive routes, that are far superior to the bureaucrats’ “best practices” homogenized trails. Rather than trying to fine or jail the experts, the bureaucrats would be better to follow the advice of the experts (whether they be trail builders, First Nations and/or scientists, and some individuals can be all three in one).
*The North Shore is widely known as a birthplace of Freeride Mountain Biking.
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Ugh. I'm so sorry. I know this feeling all too well. We've recently lost some loamers due to our local "advocacy" org throwing them under the bus. They had people literally patrolling and asking where the off map stuff was and reporting it to the land managers, fellow mountain bikers trying to get these trails shut down.
We get told by them that we need to follow the process, but there is no process for getting new trails opened and we've been flatly denied opening new trails every time it comes up for the past decade. The one chance we had to build something people wanted, they intentionally let funding expire and it never came up again.
Where we are, there is no viable path for new trails to be built and no avenue for building anything, the red tape and cost of meeting regulations alone prevents it, on top of land managers refusing it. The "new" trail we get is actually built by defacing decades old trails, cutting some boring, low grade flow path through the woods meters away, then knocking a bunch of trees down over the old one, all to fix a few dozen feet of unsustainable trail. They then wonder why people are digging loamers without approval when they butcher all the trails we liked and maintained for decades but deny the ability for us to build anything new. For the loamers, they decommission them by knocking a bunch of trees down across the trail. In one case, the trail literally paralleled a massive clearing effort done to expand utility access, but mountain bikers are the ones damaging the environment cutting a singletrack section out of it?
They wonder and seem confused why these trails keep popping up. Unfortunately, criminal penalties are severe if you are caught, but no one has any other outlet for building stuff people want to ride. When we raise concerns, we get told to volunteer, but when we volunteer - we just get told how it's gonna be and there is no room for discussion.
I don't think there is any doubting that rogue trails are bad for everyone - people risk getting fined/arrested building/riding them, they are bad for the environment, the optics are bad, and participation is limited. I discourage people from building them for these reasons and I don't myself (I can't risk the criminal aspects with my career), even though I know they will ultimately show up anyway. They are a manifestation of bureaucracy and lack of pathways to do it legitimately, but land managers and trail orgs don't seem to get this, rather they view us as children who just do whatever we want and need to be managed.
It's sad to see this in BC especially given the history of the area, but know you aren't alone, it seems to be happening around other areas like where we are and land managers seem completely oblivious to the reasons why. The supposed "advocacy" orgs seem to be equally lost in it these days, also.
Reply
Andy Eunson
3 weeks, 6 days ago
The process in Whistler takes far too long. Talking to local "official" builders. I was told of a five year process to construct a number of trails. But they got built. I also know of a number of unpermitted trails too. Some well built others less so. Most of those unpermitted trails are known to WORCA as I have seen their map. But Whistler acknowledges the importance of the riding community including visitors because that’s what makes this town run.
I think sometimes governments at all levels simply work for the loudest (richest?) voices. Get loud. Insist that Metro listen to all voices. They work for the communities after all. Allow the communities be they riding or hiking or whatever to work with Metro or whomever to build, maintain or even take out trails.
It’s I guess a sign of a growing pastime. Those that want the sport to grow need to step up and help it grow. But be aware that too much growth will lead to problems. Look at Joffrey Lakes and Garibaldi park where you require permits and bookings to camp and hike.
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Our problem is that the land managers respond to other land managers who respond to other land managers. One guy sits behind a desk, there is a guy with a bigger desk somewhere else, and so on. The politics of the district we're in are even more complicated, as one guy is in charge of recreational stuff and he's openly admitted to not liking bikes. Other staff have tried to convince him he's wrong about some things, but he refuses to listen and his will gets executed by the trail orgs whether it makes sense or not, often to the tune of 150k+ in studies and trail work.
The other problem is we don't have any real advocacy. These trail orgs see advocacy as doing trail work, not pushing back and fighting for what is best for their group. They take everything at face value and just tell people "if we don't do this, we will get trails shut down" despite most of these supposed problems existing for decades and nothing happening. They see any new trail work as "new trail" even if it means decimating decades old trails or off map trails people like and have existed for years. In one case, they spent 2 years gaslighting the community about the reason for a trail being re-routed despite being told on repeat by the land managers that the given reason wasn't correct. To put it bluntly, these groups represent themselves as groups, not the interests of mountain bikers. So we have no one advocating for us or pushing back.
So we can get loud, but there is no one to listen. The one group that should be, isn't, they just tell us their hands are tied (and they aren't necessarily wrong) then move on with their objectives. The managers respond to other managers and aren't subject to us unless we get major lobbying done at a federal level, which doesn't happen.
I don't mean to sound defeatist, but having watched this problem grow and get worse, I don't see what avenues we have left. The illegal building here has gotten out of control and, even if I like the trails, they are damaging, but I understand why people do it and why it won't stop.
Reply
Curveball
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@Shinook - Where is this?
Reply
Brian Tuulos
3 weeks, 6 days ago
"Unauthorized trails hurt our environment?" Kindly elaborate.
Reply
Mammal
3 weeks, 6 days ago
That's certainly the case with the mess directly below CBC, however they've painted the whole area with the same brush, and I think that's the real issue here.
Reply
Todd Hellinga
3 weeks, 6 days ago
high densities of trails fragment wildlife habitat, disturb wildlife from foraging, can cause excessive erosion and sedimentation of creeks. this can also lead to impacts to species at risk, both plants and wildlife.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 5 days ago
That's interesting information Todd. Do these impacts require a minimum traffic level? Do the trails themselves have the most impact, or traffic in a condensed area?
I assume it's possible that periodical high traffic days, like weekends, might have an outsized impact?
Reply
Todd Hellinga
3 weeks, 5 days ago
it's the ongoing human traffic and the wildlife become disturbed more frequently due to more people everywhere pushing them out of areas and the impacts to vegetation (which wildlife also need) by construction a trail (removal, trampling, etc). Sedimentation of creeks affects downstream fish spawning habitat and can also affect amphibians and reptiles. There isn't a lot of info out there about thresholds, but it's probably location, terrain, species dependant. However, to me seeing stacks of trails overlapping one another, crisscrossing, which just continues to monopolize the forest from other things that need it too.
It's disingenuous to say that there's "no impacts", that isn't to say ALL rogue trails have these impacts, but many do, especially when they're fall line rake and rides and stacked like cordwood. Many of these types of trails also tend to ignore water management and other issues including alignment and active maintenance which results in a lot of trails getting shit kicked quickly, especially since there's little self control about riding these types of trails in really wet weather too. And then someone 'builds' another one beside it, ad nauseam (see Diamondhead network in Squamish, CBC loamers, etc.).
You know me, Cam...long term advocate for mountain biking and trails, but I see more and more that a lot of trail users/builders (not just mtb anymore) don't see their use or spaghetti trail networks as damaging to environmental/wildlife values. For a long time I honestly didn't think trail recreation was that impactful to the environment, over the past 3-5 years in quite a few places I've had to reassess that perspective because the density of trails keeps increasing and continual addition of more, many of which that don't really even add anything unique or useful to network other than being 'new'.
My company worked on a project here in Squamish where users have created over 20km of trail on 1 square kilometer of private property. This property is surrounded by additional land that has as much or more trails within it. in a lot of respects it seems the trail user/builder communities have abandoned quality in favour of quantity (yes not everywhere, but in more and more places).
Certainly some of this is a result of land management issues, and demand, but I believe people who are building and consuming these types of trails/builds need to maybe have a little more introspection about what the broader impacts of this approach are. and yes, that has included myself and adjusting my own perspectives and opinions. I'm not even necessarily against unauthroized trails, but I can't really support a lot of what I see on a continual basis in many trail networks right now.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Thanks for that Todd.
Reply
Jerry Willows
3 weeks, 5 days ago
A big part of the problem are people who throw in a trail, everyone rides it in all kind of conditions and once it's eroded to shit, they go to the next one. The builder doesn't maintain it for whatever reason (mostly laziness) and nobody else steps up. Mountain bikers are our own worst enemies. Fix up what you ride and there won't be near as many issues.
Reply
earle.b
3 weeks, 5 days ago
This. There is lots of shade being thrown on the NSMBA but I think as community we need to address the feeding frenzy of building and abandoning crappy rake n rides.
Most people can't see it on a map but the sheer volume of loamers around CBC and down to Upper Old Buck is astonishing and not even all of them are mapped. We need more trails, but as a community we don't have a leg to stand on with land managers when a mess like what is around CBC develops. Some self reflection within the community is needed as the knock on effect to stuff like NN is that good stuff will never get sanctioned when there is a proliferation of low quality building.
Mark
3 weeks, 1 day ago
After having this sit for a bit it's interesting to see some of the people that are +1'ing Todd's comment yet have expressed anger over the closures and/or are ok with the arrow slinging at the NSMBA. Is it fair that we consider whether NN and these others would have been closed if some of the other messes hadn't happened?
Edit: Here's the queston; can we look at theses closures in isolation of all the other unsanctioned trails and the knowledge of how Metro responds to all unsanctioned building, whether that be on new unsanctioned trails or on existing sanctioned trails?
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I don't have Todd's background but I share the same feelings, although I am less likely to discourage others from building this trails, I can see the impact they have.
The reason "normal" trailbuilding around here doesn't have this problem is that, at least on USFS property, studies are required to ensure environmental and archaeological compliance. The proposed trail is evaluated to make sure it doesn't cause runoff into sensitive habitats or rivers creating sediment, for instance. Many of the lands we use have archaeological significance and things like old burial grounds or living sites, which are taken into account during this study (NEPA if you want to search more). This is a fairly long and involved process that tried to account for avoiding any impacts to the proposed trail, then once that's greenlit the rest of the red tape can happen. Then the plan is executed by a contractor who is licensed with the forest under the guidance of rangers and by their rules. It's a nightmare but it prevents environmental issues. It's a burdensome, excessive process but it has some merit buried amidst the excess of rules and regulations.
For better or worse, rogue trails don't take any of this into account. I think illegal trailbuilders tend to be more conscious of drainage that some would indicate, however others are not - there is no uniformity. Further they don't evaluate for impacts to wildlife, sedimentation, or archaeological findings. This impacts legal trail projects too - a recent butcher job by our local trail org on one of the best trails in the area had to be re-routed due to an archaeological site (rumored to be a burial ground) through the proposed area, a change which made the proposed trail objectively worse but was required by the study.
Despite my desire for more of these trails to exist, this is not a good thing. I do feel they try to be conscious of it, though, and in several instances built trails on land that was clear cut for varying reasons instead of digging new stuff through old growth forest for instance - this reduces the environmental impact because the trail is being build in an area already studied and evaluated for these purposes, but these are done in a minority of cases.
It's easy to see visibly, too. You can walk the much steeper off map stuff and see where erosion is running off or the trail is turning into a gully after only a short period of time. The moment you open up tread in the woods that didn't exist before, it's a pathway for water to start eroding and digging out the earth where it didn't before even if it gets minimal traffic. This is damage that cannot be undone. It's worse with rogue trails because they tend to be aimed at more advanced users - so steeper, faster, fall line trails with less mitigation. The steeper the trail is, the more likely it is to have erosion problems.
Some of the best trails where I live are off map trails, but there are reasons these orgs are against them and they aren't wrong. It's somewhat hypocritical of me to be against them or tell people they are wrong to ride them, but even if that's the case, I can see the impact it does. The better alternative is for land managers to back off their burdensome processes, stop treating us like children, and instead recognize their role in what creates the problem - but I don't see that happening. They see it as an offense to their authority and until they swallow their pride, it'll be cat and mouse. That cuts both ways, though, as trailbuilders need to be willing to hear this out and work within some confines they may not like. Neither side seems willing to give at all, so we're stuck with it the way it is, at least here, but I observe this problem across a variety of areas.
Reply
Todd Hellinga
3 weeks, 5 days ago
thanks for the thoughtful insight. As networks have expanded and densified here in southwest BC, the cultural use aspect is becoming extremely relevant. I've talked to more than a few First Nations members in the past few years who have shared being increasingly pushed out of their traditional cultural and use areas by trail and recreation, let alone the historical cultural impacts to specific sites. I recently read about a very popular off-the-map trail here in Squamish in which the end of it goes through an important historical site used by the Squamish Nation for thousands of years. I've ridden the trail, and knowing now that it goes through that site, I think I'll stay off it until there's some form of re-route (which is being discussed apparently).
The one thing I know is that the more I learn, the more I understand how little I know about the long term cultural and historical use of these places by First Nations and the importance they still place on them.
Reply
Kenneth Perras
3 weeks, 5 days ago
It's easy to forget that the shore was once completely clear-cut, and burned to the ground several times. The industrial activities on Seymour specifically up until the 60s has erased most areas of environmental and cultural significance and left in its wake old roads, garbage dumps, and in some cases industrial waste. This isn't an excuse for overwhelming the forest but we are not talking about pristine forest with sacred areas but forest that have been worked over multiple times. The mushroom picking story is a poor excuse for not actively managing what is a tax-payer funded resource on public land.
On one hand I completely agree that unsanctioned trail building has grown to a point of concern. I'm an advocate of we don't need more new trails, but rather more maintenance. The local builders could do a better job of monitoring poor work and gatekeep, in some sense, all building activities. However MetroVan has shown that they are unwilling to work with the largest user group out there so unsanctioned building is going to keep happening until they can come up with a suitable co-working agreement. Self monitoring the forest takes effort and if those efforts are going to be undermined then there is little incentive to ensure things are done correctly and respectfully.
All of the trails on the closure list were well built and actively maintained, environmental issues aside. Even then addressing those issues would be welcomed by the builders.
It's sad to see the lack of understanding from the NSMBA and Metro on how to effectively manage the forest. Until that happens, unsanctioned trails will continue to exist.
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@Kenneth Perras I doubt you're an expert on local (Seymour) Indigenous culture and practices so you're out of place for minimizing what cultural significance the area has to the Tsleil-Waututh people.
.glib
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@Mark - Metro sure seems to be though - someone should go tell the mushroom-picker (and apparently the NSMBA too) that 'foraging' is explicitly illegal in the LSCR. There's even a little picture of a hand reaching towards a mushroom crossed out with a red line on metro's website: https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-parks/park/Pages/Lower-Seymour-Conservation-Reserve.aspx.
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@glib the story didn't say the mushroom picking was with LSCR boundaries. Even at that, the local Indigenous people may have an exemption within LSCR boundaries.
Either way, the point is that Ken made an inconsiderate comment about something he probably doesn't have a lot of local knowledge on. Just because historical practices may have been disrupted for a while that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't continue again. There are many things to consider about Indigenous cultures, but one of the most important is that their connection to land is sacred and filters through every part of their existence.
Kenneth Perras
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I'm not trying to be inconsiderate of the cultural significance any area in North Van has for the local First Nations members but rather straddling the line of reality and consideration. We all live here and need to be realistic in how this shared resource should be managed.
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@Ken that could work if people discussed their plans for a trail with the relevant stakeholders. Unfortunately when unsanctioned trails get cut it that discussion does not happen.
Todd Hellinga
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Ken, I haven't forgotten anything about the history, my career is in environmental consulting and land use management, I'm not ignorant. And it doesn't really change my comments about density of trails, attitude of users, or impacts to things people don't understand, generally speaking.
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Mark posted this. As I can't reply inline here's the quote
"Lee the respect point comes down to the fact that Metro are the ones in control. Instead of getting distracted with some pedantic exercise over the definitions of respect let's recognize that throwing shit at people who control something you'd like to use is not a very effective way of getting what you want. We need to respect that scenario and act accordingly"
Original response was to Andrew but covers bases. Props to Cam McRae for getting the ball rolling on the response to Metro
LEE - source, personal knowledge "Metro is still as bureaucraticly inflexible, opaque, dogmatic as ever. This is a horror file for some junior intermediate Metro functionaries occupying 0.1 of their time.. Far lower in rhe priority of said functionaries time than say, movie permits (lots of filming permits in the zone), reports, operation, consultant admin etc).
The only thing Metro listens to (and then barely as we can see from the sewage plant 600% overrun, or board spending for Euro conferences, or tunnel overruns) is bad press. We already know they're unaccountable.
So the NSMBA plays patsy and puts out a "poor me" PR saying Metro is cutting out trails, says that dealing with this is a drain on "scarce" (gmafb) Metro resources. And trots out the tired trope that it makes it hard for the NSMBA to work with Metro ( because Metro is goshdarn reasonable).
You know what the NSMBA could have done? Just let Metro speak for Metro."
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Working relationships that become volatile are never productive. I fully agree the mtb community needs to push back against Metro. There's been good suggestions in terms of letter writing and applying to speak to Metro at committee meetings and it's good to see people doing that. However, the anger being tossed at the NSMBA here is misplaced imo and it's not helping the bigger picture if people are going to tear up their memberships cards over it.
The main thing that needs to be focused on is people getting involved, whether that's sending letters, going to meetings or coming out to trail days. We also need to acknowledge that as an organization that works with land managers, the NSMBA cannot take a hands-off stance on unsanctioned building. There is no way land managers would be willing to work with a trail organization that condones and supports unsanctioned building. There is a framework and a set of rules that the organization has to play within. That's the respect part that needs to be considered.
Reply
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Mark said
"There is no way land managers would be willing to work with a trail organization that condones and supports unsanctioned building"
The NSMBA should do what it did before. Stay in its lane and build /maintain sanctioned trails.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Well isn't that what they're trying to do? They're trying to work with land managers to improve and increase access for riders. They had success with Cambodia. Do you think the NSMBA should say nothing to their membership about unsanctioned building when that building has potential negative effects on their relationship with the land manager?
Reply
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 4 days ago
"Do you think the NSMBA should say nothing to their membership about unsanctioned building when that building has potential negative effects on their relationship with the land manager"
Yes
Alternatively
"Unsanctioned building is your issue to deal with"
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 4 days ago
I have a different take on it. My view is that riding has grown to the point where the community needs to be more proactive in how it uses the land we recreate on. I don't think a wild west type of attitude of do whatever we want is the one to take.
Skooks
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Complaining about Metro Van or the NSMBA on social media will not fix anything.
Writing letters to the people mentioned above, and also to Metro Van just might.
Reply
Coiler
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Excellent article Cam. This nails it: "we're tearing down your trails because you didn't ask us, but you can't ask us, and even if you did, we'd say no."
This situation is completely created by MV. Is there any stories out there of a government stopping trail building with an all out ban? The one thing trail builders have in a near limitless supply is energy to build trails. This MV policy is just going to make it worse, because now new lines are going to go in. I could see MV's perspective better if they offered a mechanism and policy for creation of new trails. Even if the policy was draconian and expensive, it would be better than the current nothing at all.
I am predicting NN is back in action for next summer, or even a brand new unsanctioned trail in the nearby area.
Reply
Abies
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Well, I might point you to the situation two counties to the south of me in California. Marin has had exactly the approach described in the article for something like 4 decades with very little signs of improvement. In that case, the dynamic is rich nimbys leveraging myopic environmental groups to halt any mountain bike access. I feel comfortable as a trained ecologist and professional in the field saying that in many cases these aren't real environmental groups, but they position themselves as such and it gives them influence, plus they have lots of money to file lawsuits around environmental permitting, which is labyrinthine here.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
With the exception of one direct response to a question about the legality of trails, I purposely decided to sit back and wait a bit before commenting.
It's understandable that people are upset, but there seems to be a fair bit of "Can't see the forest for the trees" going on in the comments. Todd Hellinga did a nice job of addressing a lot of the environmental part of that - thanks to you Todd. There's also a lot of shade getting thrown at the NSMBA, some of it by people that are far too removed from the situation to really know anything and some from people who have some awareness of the machinations of the NSMBA and their working relationships with the different land managers. I won't profess to know the whole story and realize there's a lot I don't know, but I've been close enough to the NSMBA both directly and indirectly to have a good idea of how this whole trail advocacy and building thing works. I wonder how many of the people complaining have been to an NSMBA board meeting, NSMBA AGM or communicate with the directors and staff on a regular basis? How many of them have actively participated in helping steer the direction of the organization?
In terms of some of the comments by Deanne Cote, I think we need to take a bit of a pause here. She's not saying that mtb'ing is not the focus of the NSMBA, she's saying that they'll also advocate for other types of trail users as well. We also need to consider that the NSMBA is simply a community organization of a still relatively niche activity that has no actual power over the government bodies that manage the lands we recreate on. Due to their efforts however (which includes the wishes of their membership), they have made strides in changing the way governments work with the mountain bike community. The success of getting Cambodia adopted into the official trail network is part of that. Considering Metro Van's stance towards mtb'ing over the years that is no small feat.
It's fair to ask the question of whether the organization could be doing a better job than they currently are. It may be entirely fair to answer yes to that, but we have to temper it by considering things like how many people are members of the NSMBA, how much time the volunteer people have to to advocacy work, what type of budget they have to do all the work they do and most importantly who are they engaged with. It's fine to want to dance the tango, but if the person you're set to dance with is wanting to do the foxtrot instead then it makes things difficult. It's even more difficult if the person wanting to do the foxtrot also happens to be conducting the orchestra.
This brings us back to an inconvenient truth that myself and a couple of others regularly bring up - people have to get involved with either time or money. If the greater community is really only getting involved when things hit a crisis point then all we're going to do is stumble from crisis to crisis hoping to keep the boat afloat all while some happen to be on the fringes poking holes in the hull at the same time. There are for sure a lot of things that need to change and IMHO the most important is that there needs to be an integrated Shore wide plan when it comes to managing the trail network. The only way that's going to happen is if enough people get in the ear of the respective government officials and get involved with the trail organization. Instead of biting our own legs off let's all pull together instead.
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I don't know NSMBA or the internal politics of what's going on, I live in a different region - but I've seen this same situation play out in 3 areas with 3 different managers/trail orgs. At least in these cases, money wasn't the issue, it was a matter of who sat on the board of the trail orgs.
The same thing happened with all of them - we were told to get involved, people got involved and were marginalized or shut down, then people got tired of being sidelined and just quit showing up. The internal politics of these organizations can be complicated and irritating, which often leads to certain types of people on the board that are willing to deal with it and others not wanting to mess with it. You can show up to meeting after meeting, volunteer on trail days, etc - it won't change anything. You can voice your displeasure in a meeting but in my experience, it falls flat and is a wasted effort no matter how many people show up and how loud they get.
The only time this improves in my observation is when people who don't like how they are being advocated for step up and replace the people who aren't doing their job. Maybe NSMBA is, maybe some are and some aren't, maybe their are other circumstances you don't know - so you do need to get a feel for the politics - but don't be like us. We've lost some of our most iconic legal trails in recent years, it wasn't until that combined with an uproar over rogue trails that our local board got replaced by people who seem to be more willing to advocate for their usergroup to land managers than the other way around (this is recent so we'll see how it works out). The trail org in an area I lived in previously went through the same thing, there was an uproar over the whole trail system nearly being shut down which culminated in the board (some of which didn't ride bikes) being replaced - now we see huge improvements in building and progress there.
If people don't like how they are being advocated for then use this as a catalyst to vote out the people who aren't doing their job and vote in people that will represent them. Refusing membership, tearing up membership cards, etc only is going to make it worse - these orgs represent us whether we are a part of them or not and the only way to fix them is to get rid of people who don't get it.
Point being - if you can't reason with the people in charge of advocating for you now and help them get it, then replace them with people who do. If you stall and try to change their views, it's just gonna drag it out and end the same way in my experience.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@Shinook I can say with some fairly strong certainty that this is not the case here with the NSMBA and any suggestion otherwise is false. If people aren't directly involved with the NSMBA then they really should not be commenting in a negative fashion on the operation of the organization. To do so is very uncool. TBH I'm a bit surprised at some of the comments here, and those from a couple of people in particular.
What's really important to note is that this was not a sanctioned trail and the builders knew that. They built a trail where they had no permission to do so from the land managers. You can't compare that to losing sanctioned trails.
Where you are correct is that it is ultimately the people who step into the fray and do the work of running a trail org are the ones who set it's direction - that has never changed. We'll see how that plays out at the next NSMBA AGM and who steps up to be a director or executive with the organization.
Reply
.glib
3 weeks, 5 days ago
If by "this" you mean "then people got tired of being sidelined and just quit showing up" - then I'm not sure how you can call that false. You can see Lee commenting just a little ways up the page here and he sure doesn't sound engaged with the nsmba anymore, but no one can doubt his credentials.
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
So if Lee isn't currently engaged with the NSMBA anymore then how fair is it of him to be criticizing them? He does know how difficult it can be to deal with Metro, but a lot of things can change depending on the election cycle and who's leading Metro and who isn't. Also, seeing as Chinook isn't even local to the Shore, how fair is it for them to be making assumptions about what's happening.
I see a lot of unwarranted dislike being tossed at the NSMBA when in reality they are limited in what they can do about the situation. The NSMBA has to maintain a tenuous relationship between advocation for mtb'ers and not pissing off the land manangers to the point that they don't want to deal with the NSMBA at all. That has happened on occasion in the past and it wasn't productive.
No matter how much we may not like it, we have to give a certain amount of respect and courtesy to Metro simply because of the fact that they are the ones that manage the land within the LSCR.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 5 days ago
If you take this point alone, I think the criticism is justified: Metro concedes new trails are needed. Metro says that new trails built without prior authorization will not be allowed. Metro has never authorized a new trail and has no process for authorizing a new trail. Deanne failed to mention this in her open letter or in her conversations with media
Every trail in the LSCR was built without any authorization aside from short re-routes of existing trails. Without unauthorized trails there would be no trails.
And then Metro destroys a beautifully built, sustainable and well maintained trail, spending taxpayers’ money, because there was no prior authorization, which doesn’t exist and would never be granted
How could this be omitted from this discussion? It is completely inexcusable.
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Mark said "No matter how much we may not like it, we have to give a certain amount of respect and courtesy to Metro simply because of the fact that they are the ones that manage the land within the LSCR"
Respect is earned not given. This applies to Metro
Respect is earned. It can be lost. This applies to the NSMBA
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Cam, I haven't said criticism isn't warranted, but the level and type is disproportionate to what it should be. It's important to recognize the NSMBA is in a tight position when it comes to trails on Metro's land. They don't really have any leverage or a way to exert significant pressure on Metro to change how they run things. It may be possible to change that, but it's not going to be an easy task and it's probably going to take resources that the NSMBA probably doesn't have enough of.
Wherever people sit on this one thing is for sure, the level of access we get is going to be directly influenced by the pressure we can exert and that comes down to money and labour. It's a constant struggle to push things forwards and expecting the proverbial "they or someone" to do the work instead of "me or I" means more often than not the work does not get done.
I think the open letter is meant to address a different issue than the trouble in dealing with Metro. The open letter looks at rider on-trail behaviour and how we the riding public affect relationships with the land managers. Maybe that letter should have included a part about Metro, but I don't see that as it's intent. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if Metro had said to the NSMBA that you need to have a chat with the riding community because things are getting out of hand when it comes to unauthorized building. The trails mentioned for closure are easy targets because they're easier to close than the shit stew of a lot of the other stuff. There's far too many people losing sight of the more important picture here which is finding effective ways to deal with Metro and bring pressure on them to change. We can do that through the polls, writing emails and letters or attending baord/committee meetings.
As luck would have it, there is a Metro committee meeting coming up in a few weeks on that deals with the LSCR which is managed by the Water Services Department. The meeting is on Wednesday Feb 12th from 1:00 - 5:00pm in the Metro Vancouver Committee Room of the Metro Van offices at 4515 Central Blvd in Burnaby.
These meetings have portions open to the public and we are allowed to speak to the committee about our concerns, we just have to make an application. That application should be sent in 7 working days prior to the date of the meeting. So if people want to address the committee on the 12th they should get their application in by Monday February 3rd. Of course people are welcome to show up to "observe" the proceedings as well. If people want more details on applying to speak here's a link:
https://metrovancouver.org/boards/speak-to-a-committee
The question of the day of course is how many people will show up or make an application to speak.
EDIT: Please note that I had posted the wrong committee/meeting date and the correct info has been added.
I would however suggest that it may be worthwhile also speaking to the Regional Parks Committee as their mandate is parks and most of what goes on in the LSCR from a public participation point is parks and recreation focused.
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Lee the respect point comes down to the fact that Metro are the ones in control. Instead of getting distracted with some pedantic exercise over the definitions of respect let's recognize that throwing shit at people who control something you'd like to use is not a very effective way of getting what you want. We need to respect that scenario and act accordingly.
Shinook
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Just to be clear, I'm not making assumptions about what is or isn't happening. I don't think anything I posted indicated otherwise, just that it sounds remarkably similar to situations I've dealt with based on these posts.
My commentary is based on my experiences with multiple trail orgs dealing with this exact same situation. I'm not being critical of NSMBA, because like you said, I don't live there and I don't have experience with them - but sometimes there are parallels that go beyond regional boundaries and it's possible to see similarities in patterns. The things written here show the same patterns I've seen elsewhere, it's worth recognizing that organizations tend to follow similar structures and patterns, which is why I think if you poll people of various regions - you'll find a lot of the same issues and frustrations. I'm admittedly taking it at face value but also understanding that the underlying workings of these situations can be complicated.
So yea, I don't know NSMBA, I openly admitted that - but there are similarities here and I'm just offering some suggestions based on what I've observed in other areas. Consider it a cautionary tale from someone who has seen this work out for the better, but also seen irreversible damage done.
The summary of my points here being - don't try to reason with people who are not advocating for you, it's a losing battle. Replace them and use the momentum here to do so.
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
@Shinook that's fair, but in the context of everything here it's adding fuel to the lynch mob fire that seems to be brewing about the NSMBA. I think everyone should take a step back from that part of the discussion and focus on the two bigger issues at hand, one of which we can have immediate and direct control over (rider behaviour).
earle.b
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I can't reply to your other comment on the Metro Committee meeting so I'll put it in here in hopes you see it.
Wrong committe, everyone needs to realize that LSCR is not considered Parks, it's not managed by Parks, it's managed by Water.
https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-parks/park/Pages/Lower-Seymour-Conservation-Reserve.aspx
Managed by the Water Services Department. They do have open meeting Feb 12th.
A key to much of the dealings in the LSCR with Metro is that their main mandate isn't recreation, it's water management for the watershed. Being a "park" is kinda somewhere on their list, but it's not near the top.
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Thanks Brian - I've edited my post to reflect the correct meeting.
AndrewR
3 weeks, 3 days ago
"He does know how difficult it can be to deal with Metro, but a lot of things can change depending on the election cycle and who's leading Metro and who isn't."
In which case this is even more unacceptable. Metro is a publicly funded organisation to manage public use areas with those funds. As such it should have a clearly written policy for the development and maintenance of recreation infrastructure, such as mountain bike trails, which is open to access, feed back and potentially criticism, by any user group.
The "who is leading Metro and what election cycle it is" should be irrelevant and a direct admission that there has been too much ego, politics and personal opinion involved in shaping the policy (or absence of policy in some cases) of a public body.
And regardless of where someone lives, if the available information suggests that a public body (or a user representative group) is failing to deliver on its core remit then it is fair to offer constructive criticism. As a mountain biker, if I was contributing to NSMBA, I would feel let down by the response offered by the incumbent president. There is a difference between recognising that there are other interested user groups who need to be considered and appearing to focus on those group needs to the detriment of the user group that is actually funding your position.
Mark
3 weeks, 3 days ago
@AndrewR Metro does have several publicly available documents that provide some answers. On page 11 of the LSCR Management Plan it lists 7 Guiding Principles and supporting recreation activities comes in at number 7. There is also the NSMBA Trail Work Permit that lists the trails the NSMBA is allowed to work on and guidelines for that work. The biggest document of concern is the LSCR Strategic Trails Plan from 2018 and on page 49 there is a very clear statement on Unauthorized Trail Building. Unfortunately we do not have the free reign we think we do to just go do what we want and every now and then we see the repercussions of that like we have seen with these recent trail closures.
Unauthorized Trail Building
Although the LSCR Management Plan includes a goal to develop more trails in the LSCR, unauthorized trail building is discouraged and actively managed by LSCR Staff.
Unauthorized building of trails, dirt jumps and structures has serious impact to natural areas, including habitat fragmentation, erosion, soil compaction and increased sedimentation in local waterways. Illegal trail and feature building sets a poor example for responsible stewardship of lands and does not take into consideration the required steps to ensure a trail will have the minimal impact possible on the natural environment. Once an unofficial trail becomes well established, the compaction and disruption to native vegetation communities
is severe and potentially irreversible, threatening the beauty and ecological integrity of the natural environment. Safety is also a concern, as unsanctioned trails are often not built to Metro Vancouver’s Trail Standards, safety standards, and potential building codes.
The reason I mentioned election cycles is that the elected officials with input from staff help steer the direction of the organization. This is true of pretty much any political body and it gives us the public some chance to to influence what happens. If enough people make an issue an election concern then politicians will hopefully pay attention to that and direct policy accordingly. This is however a very slow process. Considering the mtb'ing is rather low on Metro's overall list of importance this issue of more trails is a steep hill to climb. So my feeling is that the riding community needs to be a bit self reflective here in terms of how the system works, what we can do to influence it, and how our actions might impact the whole process.
Look I get the frustration as well or better than anyone else, but having worked in government I also know how slow the process of change can be and what it takes to move the needle. I'm also aware of how the bureaucratic system trundles along and how that seems incredibly frustrating when we just want to go out to build and ride fun trails. So who is leading Metro from an elected official process is not entirely irrelevant. In fact I would argue that elected officials may be our best allies.
Again I get that the NSMBA has made some mistake here, but let's take a look at the bigger body of work and be realistic about how much influence they may carry with Metro in light of Metro's mandates. They just recently had their AGM and have elected new board members so we may have to be patient for a bit to see if changes are coming. They released a statement yesterday that may answer some of the questions people are having about the organization.
Relevant Links
NSMBA statement:
https://nsmba.ca/a-message-from-the-board/
LSCR Management Plan:
https://metrovancouver.org/services/water/Documents/lower-seymour-conservation-reserve-management-plan.pdf
Work Permit for the NSMBA in the LSCR:
https://metrovancouver.org/services/regional-parks/Documents/nsmba-work-permit.pdf
LSCR Strategic Plan:
https://metrovancouver.org/services/water/Documents/lower-seymour-conservation-reserve-trails-strategic-plan.pdf
Lee Lau
3 weeks, 3 days ago
Mark thinks I am being pedantic when discussing respect. I am deliberately not.
Regarding Metro. For a decade + they've foreclosed maintenance, been shambling in consultation, and been delinquent in recreation maintenance. No respect is owed to them or their process.
Regarding the NSMBA, along with their tone-deaf response, the NSMBA continues to harp on the tired old guilt trip mantra "building new unsanctioned trails does not support this effort and creates conflict with land managers. So? The NSMBA doesn't support unsanctioned trails. Unsanctioned trails are the land manager's problem. If they make it your problem that's on the land manager's. Not you. You ( the NSMBA) have trotted out this martyr complex for 11 years since you came out with this twaddle policy.
Back to Metro ( again). They don't respect or listen to the NSMBA. The NSMBA is but a minor gadfly buzzing in the ear of this bureaucracy tasked with billion dollar infrastructure management and safeguarding water resources.
Metro doesn't respect mountain-bikers. We are an inconvenience. To be pandered to with figurative pats on the head like the CBC and Ned's trailwork curing over a decade of maintenance deficit.
What Metro seems to listen to (I won't deign to use the word respect) is bad PR. Metro doesn't like to be depicted as the unelected, unaccountable, big bad bumbly.
This is why the petition suggestEd by Kurt R and the email campaign suggested by Cam of NSMB is particularly useful.
And the NSMBA's attempted walk back of sticking its foot in the mouth multiple times, attempting to castigate independent builders for the NSMBA's failed (past, present and probably future) relationship with Metro is so lamentable
Kos
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Sad for you guys. No option to file legal challenge which might (or might not) stop any further trail destruction until a final resolution is arrived at? (no coffee yet, bad sentence, sorry)
I’ve been through this several times, mostly with dirt bikes. Funny how agencies that constantly claim loudly that they are under-budgeted can always find money to destroy trails that they don’t like.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have”.
Reply
Cr4w
3 weeks, 6 days ago
A legal challenge on what grounds?
Reply
Brad Nyenhuis
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I don't know how Canukistan works but in the US there is a law that allows off-road traffic on any "established thoroughfare". IOWs, if a trail exists, you can ride on it, regardless of how it got there. You can't work on it or even maintain it, but you can ride it.
In fact, using that "no working on the trail" logic, it seems if anyone (including the FS) does something to destroy it, THEY would actually be in violation.
Reply
Cr4w
3 weeks, 6 days ago
That's interesting. Can someone with knowledge of such things in the local context comment?
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 6 days ago
It's known colloquially as right to roam, where we have the right to travel across the land. If a trail develops from people continually following the same path then so be it. The caveat is that we are not allowed to actively shape the land; so no shovels or rakes in the dirt and not even moving a rock out of the way if one wants to get really stingy about it. This is how most paths and trails develop. With mtb'ing however, we tend to go a step further and use tools to shape the land, and unless we have permission from the governing bodies, that is a no-no.
Edit: I'll add that this is probably some of the thinking behind "loamers". It's a double edged sword for both parties. At the end of the day the best thing is for there to be cooperation between all stakeholders and for the land managers to recognize that being active in their management is going to be far more effective in the long run.
Reply
Brad Nyenhuis
3 weeks, 6 days ago
"With mtb'ing however, we tend to go a step further and use tools to shape the land, and unless we have permission from the governing bodies, that is a no-no."
My point is that, if they didn't catch the offending builders at the time, the trail is now there. It can't be legally maintained, but it can be ridden.
Another benefit of biking is that the act of riding on a trail helps to maintain it somewhat.
Mark
3 weeks, 3 days ago
@Brad the rules are different here. Generally the land manager has the discretion on whether to keep a trail open or close it, whether that trail was sanctioned or unsanctioned. It goes back to the difference in history in the development of our two nations and their respective governance.
Shinook
3 weeks, 3 days ago
@Brad (and @Mark)- The rules in the US vary depending on land manager, but no such rule exists for USFS property or country wide. There are criminal penalties for riding bikes off trail - existing or not, usually in the form of fines. The forest near me has a number of old surveying/logging trails that are largely decommissioned, but you can absolutely be fined for riding them. The same applies if bikes are restricted on the trail or it's seasonal. It's a different matter if you are on foot, where you can effectively do whatever you want.
You are right that maintenance is treated separately, as is creation, both carry federal prison sentences vs fines for "just riding". That being said, most land managers are stretched so thin they don't have the resources to hunt down violators, but the absolutely do it and I've seen them sitting at the bottom of trails handing out tickets to people on bikes. There have been several instances of builders being fined six figure sums and at risk of federal prison time for building on USFS property, so the rules are different based on the offense, but riding is still illegal unless it's a designated trail.
I don't know about BLM or the numerous other land managers or what their rules entail, but I've never been involved anywhere that such a rule existed. If one does then it's practically not put into place, something that can also be observed in bikes being restricted on certain trails around the US.
There are countries with such laws, though, IIRC Scotland has a right to roam and effectively the same laws. Others in Europe don't seem to differentiate as much among trail users, but trail use in the US in general is heavily restricted.
David S
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Oh man, this is very thorny as this is something that has happened in our area recently. Basically a FS ranger (in my neck of the woods in the US) stated that if he saw anyone riding an illegal trail on a bike, he would assume that the person was building/working on the trail and immediately throw the book at them. You may think that the ticket might never stick, but it became a "he said/she said" situation with the FS ranger and they are always going to win that fight.
Long story short, some people were made examples of and basically ran out of town because of it.
Reply
Shinook
3 weeks, 6 days ago
The USFS staff are effectively law enforcement in some instances, if they charge you with illegal trailbuilding it comes with a number of major felonies and fines. Your life is going to be severely impacted even if you don't get jailtime and the burden of proving you weren't building falls onto you, which could easily bankrupt you just to maintain your freedom.
Sadly it's something I'd take seriously. My experience is that 1 in 20 USFS rangers are hotheads, the others are chill and often disagree with the 1's approach, but can't do anything about it.
It's not just us, either. A local place near our forest here was fined like 15k for cutting bushes on their property, apparently they functioned as erosion control and gave them basis for the fine even though it was outside of USFS property boundaries and on private property.
They have way too much authority over these sorts of things and it's a careful balance of making sure they have the authority required to maintain the environment and not overreaching, sadly it seems they are able to overreach for just about anything involving a waterway
Reply
Jerry Willows
3 weeks, 6 days ago
one of the thousand reasons I would never live in the states
Kos
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Sadly, I have no idea. But it seems like every time a new trail system is on the verge of being built — as opposed to decommissioned — the “bugs and bunny” folks line up their lawyers, file suit, and slow things down, or reduced the scope of what gets built, etc., etc.
Reply
SteveR
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Sad to see this happening on what appear to be well built trails. I'm 1000 km to the east and it's been a decade since I rode the shore, but my observation about mtb'rs in the broad sense is that too many want more, more, more and happily shred and share "rogue" (I hate that term) trails, yet far too few are willing to put in the work, either on the tools or behind the scenes, especially when it comes to the routine unglamorous work of maintenance on trials both sanctioned or not. So yes- anger at uncooperative agencies such as Metro Vancouver is understandable, but riders in general might also need to take a look in the mirror.
Reply
Guy Elliott
3 weeks, 6 days ago
As a middle age (aka always getting better age) MTB who found the sport/culture 10 years ago, I missed the War in the Woods and the original formation of the NSMBA. I'm interested in learning and learning from history, including the rich fabric of each of our zones, trails, and builders on the Shore
Genuine question, how does this current crisis in the LSCR compare to the earlier crisis when the NSMBA was originally formed by Digger and his contemporaries?
(gonna be drafting a lot of emails today. Thanks Cam for the call to action)
Reply
gramm
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Not sure if it is related to the recent media around the Mtn Bike trails but there seems to be an increase in sabotage on some trails now with someone running into a piece of twine across the trail on a night ride on lower Espresso as well as what looked to be deliberate sticks and debris on some Cypress trails and other trails on Fromme. Watch out when riding, look before you leap !! Sounds like NSMBA is more of a spokesperson for Metro now.....sad to hear.
Reply
D_C_
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Most have probably seen this, but there's now a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/building-bridges-not-barriers-a-new-era-for-trails-sanctioning-processes-on-lscr-lands
Reply
Lynx .
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Man Cam, that really blows. As a fellow trail builder/maintainer, I feel for all the hours upon hours of proper hard work and thought the builders of those well built trails have done, only to be trashed without any thought just because "We" didn't get permission first.
Few things happening, but for sure I'll be writing to all of those members, or at least writing one letter and sending it to all. Every year we have a group of guys who visit BC/Whistler to ride, normally it's from 5-7, they have to pay for flights, lodging, rent bikes, transportation, buy food etc., and I'm sure there are a hundred, if not thousands of similar groups who make annual visits to the area to ride the very unique trails BC is known for.
Reply
blacksheep
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I've emailed all in the list, and will continue to be the squeaky wheel. BTW the email link for lcrs@metrovan is misspelled. Thanks for writing this Cam. Been riding the shore for 20+ years and sick of this shit.
Reply
Trogdor
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Too bad Rocky Dong never won his riding. He would have been our savior, we named a trail after him and everything.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Good catch. I'm not sure if it was you who emailed me, but it's been corrected.
Reply
Flatted-again
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Well, I was trying to plan a bike trip to check out what the hubbub was about these trails. This may change that. (Happy to send emails to the board if that would help).
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I wouldn’t cancel because of this
There are still many incredible trails to ride. Metro doesn’t even control all of mount Seymour, let alone all of the North Shore. There are some promising developments on Fromme and Cypress as well.
Reply
Brad Nyenhuis
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I actually just sent out emails to several of those listed above.
Each email listed this link and said simply:
"Nice work boneheads. My summer vacation plans just changed."
Reply
dano91
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Very well put Cam. I’ve been venting my frustrations on various Reddit threads and in group chats with friends. But this call to action has inspired me to actually do something that is hopefully useful and direct my opinion to metro itself. Maybe if enough of us do it, something will change. Although I feel pretty pessimistic about the whole situation.
Reply
Andy Eunson
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I think one of the questions that I didn’t see asked or answered (I may have missed it) is why do people build trails without a permit anyway? Do they find existing trails do not fulfill their desires, too crowded, too easy? Is the permit process too cumbersome and long?
Reply
Mammal
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I'd say the answer includes "yes" to all the possibilities you mentioned.
Reply
tmoore
3 weeks, 6 days ago
This comment has been removed.
tmoore
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Because the building process is fun and rewarding and the permitting process is not
Reply
Jotegir
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Cooper Quinn? Former president of the NSMBA? I've never heard of him, how do we know we can trust him?
Reply
earle.b
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Guy only rides gravel, can't be trusted.
Reply
inshane
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Here we go again.
Reply
jason
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Metro Van.... can't manage a water treatment plant (billions over budget). But lets take time and money to close a couple trails.
Priorities and focus...
Reply
dano91
3 weeks, 5 days ago
So there’s word floating around that a line was set across a the trail on lower espresso and some bikers came across it last evening.
I can’t help but think that the public is getting riled up due to the negative way that our community is being portrayed in the mainstream media.
Be careful out there and be eyes ahead while riding.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I'd like to applaud everyone who has sent a letter to the members of the Water Committee. I have already been cc'ed on 7 letters and they have been excellent.
Reply
Lynx .
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Hey Cam, been a busy week, but today isn't, so was going to do my e-mails, but can't find your post with the e-mail addresses any more, did you remove it or am I just blind?
This comment section and how replies get shuffled about needs to be fixed, it's annoying AF to try and follow a discussion when threads/replies move about all the time depending on if they get lots of likes/dislikes.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks ago
They are at the bottom of the article above Lynx.
They are also in the new article I posted today. I'll paste them here as well though.
Thanks for getting involved!
West, Brad (C) – Port Coquitlam email: [email protected] Sager, Mark (VC) – West Vancouver email [email protected] Albrecht, Paul – 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 – Burnaby 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]
Reply
Coiler
3 weeks, 4 days ago
I emailed Pete Meiszner, and was pleasantly surprised to receive a thoughtful and quick response, including CCing the MV Director. He even offered to arrange a phone call and a possible field trip (I am sure she loved seeing that in her inbox this morning!).
PSA - if something government does ticks you off, email your elected representative. I have done this a few times, from councillor up to MP, and I have always received a personalized response.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks ago
Excellent letter sir! And agreed, that was response was a pleasant surprise.
Reply
Brother Lu
3 weeks, 6 days ago
" This often seems to allow them operate like little kingdoms unto themselves, beholden to nobody, despite being funded by our tax dollars."
Metro Van is out of control. This story is just one example.
Reply
Jerry Willows
3 weeks, 6 days ago
MetroVancouver operates without direct accountability and effectively has access to an unlimited budget.
You just have to look at the billions of overspent dollars on the treatment center among a slew of other items..
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 6 days ago
3.2 Billion in 2025.
Reply
Jerry Willows
3 weeks, 6 days ago
I bet the executives get big raises... again.
Reply
tjex
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Maybe they are paying themselves too much to have anything left to fund new trails?
https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2025/01/22/metro-vancouver-mayors-salaries-transparency-eby/
Reply
AussieDreamZ
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Having dealt with Metro Vancouver through another organisation I have seen this unfold before. the CPTA (Candian Pacific Trials Association) had tenure on land in Belcarra for over 50 years (so before Metro took over and turned it into a Metro Park) and continued to operate with a lease with Metro after it was turned into Park. As Trials moto is a much smaller group we had the same trails with very little changes over all those years so no "rogue builds" (for want of a better term) and then Metro decided to terminate the lease, we fought back, obviously; contacted all the correct officials and engaged lawyers etc and we still lost access to the land.
I'm sharing this because I think the take away point is that trials didn't explode as a sport with a bunch of new riders followed by a bunch of new trails going in etc, but Metro still decided they didn't want us there any more.
Reply
earle.b
3 weeks, 5 days ago
This needs to be shared further in this conversation. It matches my experience with Metro from when I was on the board 2012 to 2017. They are not receptive to working with the community to expand any recreation.
There has been poor communication from the NSMBA on this, but this has been a very long run of being shut down by Metro. It's been a tenuous relationship for a long time. The NSMBA has walked a fine line of not throwing Metro under the bus in order to preserve some relationship.
To make matters worse there is no one single Board Meeting that the community can flood to pressure for support. Metro is like a headless monster when compared to the DNV.
Reply
tjex
3 weeks, 5 days ago
This was posted a little way up by @Mark
"So if people want to address the committee they should get their application in by Monday January 27th. Of course people are welcome to show up to "observe" the proceedings as well. If people want more details on applying to speak here's a link:
https://metrovancouver.org/boards/speak-to-a-committee"
That being said, it's ridiculous how convoluted it is to attend, it's a fully publicly funded entity that seems to have no easy way for the public to interact with. They really should put their efforts in resolving the treatment plant gargantuan over budget, instead of a few trails on a mountain.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 5 days ago
That has been corrected. Because the LSCR is controlled by the water dept., speaking to the regional parks committee will do us no good. We need to speak to the water committee. Their next meeting is Feb. 12th. That means applications to speak need to be in by January 31st.
Water Committee Meeting
1:00 pm - 5:00 pm
Metro Vancouver Committee Room
Reply
Mark
3 weeks, 5 days ago
Thanks for adding that Cam.
ALthough I wonder if also trying to speak with the Parks committee might be worthwhile as they may have some influence/input/guidance on the situation.
Cam McRae
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Update - the Water Committee meeting on Feb. 6th has been mysteriously cancelled.
XXX_er
3 weeks, 6 days ago
from what i have seen good things happened in the rest of BC at taxpayer funded MOF
even throwing money at mtnbiking
unfortunately this ain't MOF you are dealing with ... good luck eh
Reply
tinger
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Is this issue limited to the North Shore? I feel like it is, because other regions Port Moody (Eagle) , POC (Burke), Squamish seem to frequently add net new sanctioned trails to their networks. What is the difference in how things are done in those regions as compared to the North Shore?
Reply
earle.b
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Different land managers for different areas. Different policy's.
FYI NSMBA needs to work with
Metro Vancouver LSCR (no in the Parks portfolio but in Metro's watershed management)
District of North Vancouver - Parts of Seymour and most of Fromme
Grouse Mountain - privately owned land on Fromme (more trails than people realize)
City of North Vancouver - small project in Greenwood Park
BC Parks - lower Seymour stuff (Empress Bypass - east end of Bridal and Badden) / "Darkside" unsanctioned trails
RSTB - CHMC lands on Seymour (probably more trails than people realize - list)
District of West Vancouver - sanctioned trails on the east side of Cypress
British Properties - unsanctioned trails on Cypress.
Lastly directly and indirectly with the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil-Waututh) Nations
It's been a couple years since I was on the board but I don't think I am missing any here.
Reply
UMichael
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Burnaby did something very similar last summer where they shut down a few unsanctioned trails on Burnaby Mountain (one of which was actually a decently well built, fun to ride trail).
The problem with Burnaby Mountain is that Burnaby requires paid staff to be on hand when people are building or maintaining trails, which obviously makes it hard to consistently maintain trails, resulting in a progressively shrinking trail network. It's not hard to imagine that people would then attempt to establish new trails to recover some numbers...
I've volunteered on many trail maintenance days on Burnaby Mountain, and everyone would happily do more to maintain the trails, the city just doesn't allow that.
Reply
DirtSnow
3 weeks, 6 days ago
This comment has been removed.
Mic
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I have not been to Vancouver for quite a substantial amount of time, but I remember talking at an official meeting and sending emails almost twenty years ago - to be honest, I am really surprised that there is this conflict (esp. with the NSMBA). I really thought that a decent way of dealing with each other, a decent way of communication between riders, various builders and Metro, a decent and constructive way of dealing with "rogue" building and unsanctioned trails had been found and established all those years ago. As inshane put it - here we go again.
Sad.
Reply
Andy Eunson
3 weeks, 5 days ago
I have another question. If the builder(s) of these now decommissioned trails had gone the proper route and sought a building permit, would they have gotten one? If yes I would think that there should be a process to obtain such a permit after the fact. But then again maybe there are other reasons to not allow trail building in certain areas as Todd mentioned above. Many people are aware of physical parameters to building a good trail but are ignorant of other environmental impacts of building and riding such as wildlife disturbance and disturbance of First Nation cultural heritage sites.
Many parts of the North Shore, Squamish and Whistler are second growth forest and still working forests to be logged. Or are private lands set to have homes built on them. There would be different considerations in those places versus old growth forests.
I see this as a growth issue more than anything else. I get a bit weary with the growth at all costs crowd. As if growth is always good as an incontrovertible truth. Growth isn’t always sustainable and maybe in some places around here we are at max. Do we need more trails or do we want more trails. Those are different things. Maybe we need to look down the road further than a typical four years of foresight politician. Many riders only look as far as the next weekend.
If we look at other activities like alpine skiing Vail has increased uphill capacity and lessened the cost of a season’s pass and weekends at Whistler are stupid busy. Hiking in Garibaldi park requires a day use permit. Camping all over requires booking ahead. Unencumbered growth has consequences.
Reply
Cam McRae
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Rather suspiciously, the Water Committee meeting scheduled for Feb. 6th has been cancelled.
I wonder why?
Reply
Mark
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Now that is something that the news needs to get on. A headline along the lines of :
Metro shirks responsibility by cancelling committee meeting to avoid public scrutiny.
Reply
Cam McRae
2 weeks, 4 days ago
I just heard back from Heidi Walsh, through her "Senior Media Relations Strategist."
Hello Cam,
Heidi Walsh, Director of Watersheds and Environment, isn’t available for an interview, but you can attribute the response below to her.
Metro Vancouver is responsible for managing the 5,668-hectare Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve (LSCR) to maintain its recreation, education, and environmental values in conjunction with its capacity as a water reserve. The primary goals are to ensure public safety, protect the environment, and provide opportunities for a variety of different user groups.
There has been an increase in the number of unsanctioned mountain bike trails on the North Shore in recent years, including in the LSCR. Metro Vancouver does not permit unsanctioned trail building due to safety and environmental concerns. When unauthorized trails are discovered in the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve staff assess them based on multiple criteria and prioritize them for removal. As a result of this work, several unsanctioned trails will be decommissioned in the coming months.
There is room to expand the official trail network in a way that meets our environmental and safety standards, and we urge enthusiasts to connect formally with Metro Vancouver and the North Shore Mountain Bike Association — with whom we have worked closely for 20 years — to discuss the future of mountain biking on public lands on the North Shore.
Thanks very much,
Jen
Reply
dano91
2 weeks, 4 days ago
This comment has been removed.
Lee Lau
2 weeks, 4 days ago
Thanks Cam. That's the party line then.. connect formally with Metro (who doesn't sanction except at glacial pace) ... and with the NSMBA (the organization you knee capped for so many yearsl.
Reply
Sven
2 weeks, 4 days ago
I got a personal response from Heidi and the LSCR Division Manager, not much different meaning that yours though. I give it 10 years before New Normal is sanctioned, with the same effort from the NSMBA needed to get there for Cambodia, so those who care might volunteer to help out as a director.
I've asked if they have an update to the 2017 trail standards or 2022 MP, I doubt it.
https://metrovancouver.org/services/water/Documents/lower-seymour-conservation-reserve-management-plan.pdf
https://metrovancouver.org/services/water/Documents/lower-seymour-conservation-reserve-trail-standards.pdf
Does any one know how old Orleans and Iceland are?
Reply
Lee Lau
2 weeks, 4 days ago
Orleans fka Heavy Flow is 2010
Iceland is 2018-9
Jankaritaville is 2020
So about a decade or so to go for Metro. Perhaps the same timing as commissioning the sewage plant.
Reply
DirtSnow
3 weeks, 6 days ago
CBC Article! New CBC article posted today (Jan 22nd). Unfortunately does not give a complete perspective on the issue. I suggest folks email the journalist Michelle Gomez at [email protected] to explain the true position of the community and the barriers that exist within 'official' channels.
Reply
Kenny
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Yes this article is a mess, made worse by the fact that the NSMBA just shit the bed in general with their messaging on this.
Reply
DirtSnow
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Email Michelle and let her know that the CBC should further investigate the barriers that exist within the existing beaurocracy. This will put transparency pressure on both NSMBA and Metro Vancouver.
Reply
D_C_
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Quote from the Metro Van person in the CBC article:
"If there is a certain type of trail that is lacking in our system, then we really would like for the ideas to be brought forward through [the NSMBA] instead of someone just going out and taking it upon themselves to build the trail on their own"
That is a slightly different tone from that in the North Shore News article earlier this week ("It's just not our mandate to be the best mountain bike trail network around"). Maybe Metro Van is starting to come around? We can hope.
Reply
Kenny
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Another article, this time stating that the corkscrew sabotage was a direct retaliation for rogue building. Is that true? How was that even discerned?
https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-trails/rogue-trail-building-and-booby-traps-tensions-at-a-boiling-point-on-north-shore-vancouver-mtb-trails/
Reply
mudhoney
3 weeks, 4 days ago
I’m currently the nsmba permitted builder on Corkscrew. When I saw Trailforks reports of debris on the trail, I checked it out and cleared as soon as I could (within 24 hours of seeing the reports). On seeing it, I was able to confirm that it was deliberately placed there, not naturally there from wind etc.
I shared photos on my instagram to warn folks etc. The person responsible for the debris, a fellow mountain biker, saw my post & messaged me. They owned up, indicating they were angry with metro for closing New Normal etc., and apologized, recognizing it wasn’t a helpful response and taking responsibility for their actions. I am confident this person will not do again. We had a good chat about metro’s actions in closing the trails etc
The singletracks article calling it “trail terrorism” is click bait and a gross exaggeration. Yep, the debris was a hazard, but it was clearly visible on the trail for riders to avoid. Exaggerating and using terms like “terrorism” doesn’t help things at all. The amount of attention that the debris on corkscrew has been given in some of the articles takes away from more important issues with this whole situation.
Reply
Kenny
3 weeks, 4 days ago
Ah so it was the opposite then - the sabotage was a response to the decommissioning, not the building. That is still terrible, but opposite of how the article conveys it, at least as I read it.
Thanks for the info!
Reply
Henry Chinaski
3 weeks, 4 days ago
That's a pertinent clarification. Thanks!
Reply
Cougar797
3 weeks, 6 days ago
Just remember if you never register they exist with the gov, they are way harder to take away.
Reply
Cam McRae
3 weeks, 5 days ago
That ship has sailed. There are online maps that have even well-hidden and obscure trails on them now - with the correct names. They are taking note of every line there is at this point.
Reply
XXX_er
3 weeks, 5 days ago
From what I see nowdays the younger gov types coming up and or now in charge have the same gear/ do the same stuff as any other outdoor folk and they hang out in the same peer groups which might not have been the case 30 yrs ago and so I think everybody knows what going on
Reply
Please log in to leave a comment.