New posts

BC government policy on bike trails

Nov. 7, 2006, 3:14 p.m.
Posts: 6663
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002


**This looks very bureaucratic although you've made some efforts to stress that trail plans don't require engineering-level drawings.

Asking groups to adopt trails with this kind of administrative headache is a non-starter. Trail groups simply aren't this organized and you will ask people to set themselves up for a fall.

Why the requirement for insurance when the government has the ability to amend the Occupiers Liability Act to make it impossible to sue the government for any injuries occuring due to a stunt/technical trail feature. Insurance is expensive; trail groups will never be able to raise that money.

I read this policy as such - Government basically wants groups to adopt and maintain trails for everyone, then government will market those trails without any obligation to give anything back to the trail groups. Meanwhile, government also wants trail groups to take on public liability for all trails (since almost all trails in BC have stunts).**
For North Shore - no effect as very few trails are on crown land. Will affect Woodlot, Vedder, Squamish, Whistler and other places. - Policy is here

Policy on website also at (Note - couldn't find it)

Direct comments to Bill Marshall, Director of Recreation Sites and Trails Branch, Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts


1. Trials of the policy in Squamish, Chilliwack, Burns Lake, Terrace, Nelson, Invermere, Kamloops and Williams Lake

2. Applies to crown lands (ie Provincial lands) NOT municipal lands.

3. Will remove trails from crown lands if no organization adopts trails

4. Trail groups have to "apply" to adopt trails. May have to consult with other stakeholders and public. May have to submit land use plans

5. Have to be an organized trail group to adopt trails. Individuals can only get one-off permission for specific projects.

6. SHORT TERM trail work is for one year projects. Simple application process

7. LONG TERM trail work is for up to ten years. Complex application process (organization's resume and past experience; how to deal with other users; environmental mitigation)

8. All new trails must be multi - use (ie no purpose built bike trails - must allow motoX, hikers, horses etc).

9. If trail group builds stunts must get $ 2M third party liability insurance; must appoint trail safety coordinator; must file annual report with MOTSA about trail and stunt inspection and repair plan, Must follow IMBA and Whistler standards

10. Any trails with stunts must have multi-year agreement. All multi-year agreements must have annual operating plan (Submit 1:20,000 map; Plan with nature and timing of proposed trail work)

11. Trails without stunts that are not adopted may become legally sanctioned. Any trails with stunts that is not adopted may be deactivated.

Nov. 7, 2006, 3:17 p.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005

All it will do is drive everything underground again.

Nov. 7, 2006, 3:21 p.m.
Posts: 6663
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

All it will do is drive everything underground again.


Nov. 7, 2006, 3:24 p.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005


  • digging through dusty footlocker*

pulls out secret decoder ring and code book

Secret Trail Society anyone?

orders digital decryption equipment

Nov. 7, 2006, 3:36 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov. 17, 2005

My head hurts!



Nov. 7, 2006, 3:38 p.m.
Posts: 5225
Joined: July 22, 2003

so basically, volunteer groups should get insurance, accept some level of liability, do all the admin headaches, be restricted in what they can built, etc.

while the government continues to promote MTB tourism in all sorts of manners so that they can increase their tax revenue.

this is fucking bull shit. if the gov want to promote MTB tourism, how about providing insurance (or ammend Occupiers Liability Act), and also provide funding support to the groups that keep the trail alive.

all this is gonna do is kill off the MTB organizations, piss off the volunteers and drive it all underground as mentioned already. net result: the trails the tourists come to ride will quickly get shit-kicked and be garbage, which when known will defeat the gov's tourism revenue plan anyways.

Nov. 7, 2006, 3:38 p.m.
Posts: 3740
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

All it will do is drive everything underground again.

thats fine by me. things were better when every one thought mountain biking meant a ride on a gravel road.

Nov. 7, 2006, 3:41 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Oct. 5, 2006

No fucking way am I following this in my area. Illegal trails here we go…


Nov. 7, 2006, 4:31 p.m.
Posts: 17873
Joined: Oct. 28, 2003

Existing Unauthorized Trails
Where possible, MTSA will partner with a local organization to authorize existing trials that are presently unauthorized

Nov. 7, 2006, 4:46 p.m.
Posts: 26382
Joined: Aug. 14, 2005

I read " tell us where your hidden trails are, and we'll authorize them… " Rrriiiiigggght….

Let's see, No password, no secret handshake, no full tax refund, no case of beer or case of Glenlivet 12 year old singlemalt?

No way in hell you find out where trail CENSORED is.

Nov. 7, 2006, 5:13 p.m.
Posts: 265
Joined: March 25, 2003

start cloning Sharon

ride, build, ride some more….

Nov. 7, 2006, 5:54 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: June 1, 2006

All it will do is drive everything underground again.

First thing I thought ! Not like it really even affects many of us, because we know where the trails are, and can jsut as easily build trails way off the beaten path. This is going to make trails much less advertised (cbc, corkscrew etc.)

Nov. 7, 2006, 7:37 p.m.
Posts: 15465
Joined: May 29, 2004

All it will do is drive everything underground again.

Full circle complete….Im fine with this.

Nov. 7, 2006, 8:27 p.m.
Posts: 1036
Joined: Aug. 10, 2003

I doubt the relevant government agencies have the manpower to take on motivated trailbuilders should many decide to ignore this policy. Things will continue as normal til someone gets hurt or there is a complaint. That is when a trail might be taken down. It takes incredible resources to police huge areas like we have in bc and the gov;t is already stretched thin.

On the other hand this is an opportunity to show how organized we are. Lots of feedback might remove some parts of the policy. Other parts we can work around, like multiple use. How many bike trails are in places that hikers would want to go anyways? Bikers are there for the ride. Hikers want a destination with a view - what are they going to do, shuttle part way up a valley and hike down? A trail could be designed so its no fun for dirtbikes but good for mtb's. Lots of trails might be too steep for horses.

Similarly with the requirement for organizations, not individuals, to adopt trails. The workaround would be for the local association to adopt on behalf of the individual, who would then represent the association by doing the maintenance. It would take a bit more committment and perhaps local shops would need to help set up associations where they do not exist.

How is the concept of stunts at all compatible with multi-use? Separate "ride-arounds" for horses, hikers, and MXers?

Nov. 7, 2006, 8:45 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

horse gaps have to have those wooden bars that fall down if the horses dont make it. the boys at the woodlot are gonna have a fit !

son of a stromatolite !

Forum jump: