Reply to comment

Oct. 6, 2019, 4:06 p.m. -  natbrown

It's worth pondering, for everyone, what sustainable means. I think all three of you have stated points that are valuable, and there'd probably be some benefits if there was a definition that was accepted more broadly than just inside the mountain bike community. I think there's a trail centric definition, where it means the trail condition is consistent over a short-medium term (human scale) so long as the resources are provided in material and human terms. The resources required obviously vary depending on trail location and design. Then there's the definition that values the environment that the trail is located in, the definition that the broader public uses. That definition isn't especially interested in the trail itself, but the cost of that trail to the area it's located in, especially as maintenance draws resources from the surrounding area in order to keep the trail condition consistent. Well, I'm probably giving a majority of people too much credit in how much thought they give in defining this term, but there are certainly people like you folks who do consider it. My take on trail sustainability is one of the main reasons why I'm going to be riding pavement mostly from now on. I do concede though, everything has it's costs, and we all decide for ourselves where we draw the line on what's acceptable- I come in peace :)

Post your comment

Please log in to leave a comment.