I don't see why it's an unusual or unfavorable position to value trail orgs and unsanctioned trails at the same time. They both play an important role in the Shore-osphere. You can value and support something that you don't always align 100% with.
cambodia update
I definitely wouldn't say it's unusual to believe in trail orgs and ride unsanctioned trails, but it is a sticky debate when it comes to seeing that as unfavourable. Unsanctioned trails are the not so secret dirty secret of the mtb community. We know these things aren't supposed to happen, but not too many people are going to purposely argue against them or swear off riding these trails. The small few who actually build these trails presumably don't care about the rules or rationalize breaking them because the risk of getting caught or punished is so low that as long as people stay out of the high heat zones then it's all good in tha hood. There's also a psychological dynamic at play; people tend to like being in the special group and having privileges that others don't have. The idea that you have access to something that others don't seems to do a good job of feeding our egos. If you had access to two trails that you'd never ridden before, with one being sanctioned, on the map and well known, but the other was unsanctioned, hidden and less well known, what would people find more appealing?
The big question that needs to be considered is how much does illegal building affect the sanctioned trail network? Could the legalization of Cambodia (or possibly other trails) have happened a lot sooner if there was far less illegal building going on? Would support from land managers be a lot higher if there was far less illegal building going on? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think they at least need to be acknowledged.
99% of every trail out there started out as unsanctioned. There would be no mtb industry without unsanctioned trails. Building unsanctioned trails isn't about being in a special group but having a trail you like to ride or more options. How much better would the trails be with support from land managers? minimal. MTB's are rock and roll.
Yeah, I'm fully aware all mtb trails started out as unsanctioned and that we wouldn't have what we have without people taking risks. But we can't deny/ignore that unsanctioned building creates friction. I disagree that things would only be minimally better with better support from land managers because there could be far more funding available for trail crews and there could be a far more cohesive plan for the trail network. Heck, we could maybe even get some alpine type trails. How cool would it be to be able to have a pedal like the Howe Sound Crest Trail available to us?
Posted by: mammal
I don't see why it's an unusual or unfavorable position to value trail orgs and unsanctioned trails at the same time. They both play an important role in the Shore-osphere. You can value and support something that you don't always align 100% with.
Yup. For clarity, I also don't think there is any real ethical difference between users who ride unsanctioned trails (i.e. like Polymath) and those users who ride unsanctioned trails AND support trail orgs.
At the 2014 AGM, then President Matthew Bond said the worst thing for the NSMBA is unsanctioned trails. Perhaps that statement was referring to the climate at the time, or maybe just a few zones, but it stuck with me. It was a rather blanket statement given without much context and I am not sure how true it rings nowadays given that some unsanctioned trails are becoming sanctioned. Perhaps the lack of intervention from land managers shows that unsanctioned trails aren't as big of a problem as some people play them up to be.
I'm not sure land managers have the best interest of mountain bikers in mind, in general. They are worried about liability, environmental issues, user conflicts, angry taxpayers ect., not necessarily about advancing the sport. I get the impression that we are tolerated but not celebrated (and sometimes not even tolerated).
Sanctioned or unsanctioned, I think the best thing we can do for our trail networks is to keep the trails in good condition. An eroded, neglected or abandoned mess of lines is a lot less palatable than a well thought out cohesive trail network that is given proper upkeep. Maintained trails are a lot safer, last longer, and in my opinion, are more likely to be tolerated or adopted by land managers. The "rake and abandon" building method irks me because it is irresponsible and gives us a bad name. Land managers talk a lot about decommissioning redundant trails. I'd rather see eager volunteers maintain or re-envision existing trails than to cut a new line. I imagine a well maintained trails is considered far less redundant than a chunder trench.
Anyone have any update on the TNT upgrade/climbing/multi-use loop trail or whatever is being constructed??
Posted by: Kever
...
Yes, exactly. In some places there are a slew of lines running haphazardly all over the place with no real thought as to how they integrate into the trail network as a whole. I think unsanctioned trails would be far less of an issue if in general they were in better condition. There are more than enough sanctioned trails in need of trailbuilders that people randomly cutting in new lines isn't really needed. However, I have no problem saying that there are some exceptions to that and there are unsanctioned trails that have definitely added to the trail network as a whole. IMHO part of the problem is that there still tends to be a bias to looking at a trail as an isolated entity, instead of how it fits into the trail network. It's an individual vs holistic approach.
Posted by: SixZeroSixOne
Anyone have any update on the TNT upgrade/climbing/multi-use loop trail or whatever is being constructed??
really curious what that's about. as a climbing trail, seems odd; people wanting to do lower cambodia / icelandia laps? as a down, perhaps an alternate cambodia exit to avoid the greenland climb? bypasses so much slabby goodness though.
I think the sanctioned trails are maintained pretty well tbh. I do agree that more maintenance could be done on the unsanctioned ones. People just need to step up and help maintain what they ride and it would help out immensely.
Posted by: xy9ine
Posted by: SixZeroSixOne
Anyone have any update on the TNT upgrade/climbing/multi-use loop trail or whatever is being constructed??
really curious what that's about. as a climbing trail, seems odd; people wanting to do lower cambodia / icelandia laps? as a down, perhaps an alternate cambodia exit to avoid the greenland climb? bypasses so much slabby goodness though.
https://elac.ca/projects/lscr-east-area-detailed-trail-planning-and-construction-support/
And some dead links here
This debate on the changes to Cambodia reminds me of something I have been thinking about alot lately: how us mountain bikers think of sustainability. I am gonna be as brief as possible, so forgive me for some major simplifications here. In my eyes, we tend to think of sustainability in trail building as trails that are constructed so they require minimal maintenance, and are also resistant to change. When trails change due to natural processes, like erosion, we tend to think that is bad. So our sanctioned, sustainable trails, particularly here on the north shore, are built up really heavily to resist those changes. Think about seventh secret, with its cobblestone surface.
The thing that is weird to me, is that our trails are located in forested ecosystems that are actually extremely dynamic. Particularly here in the PNW, where we get big rains and winds that can change the forests really quickly. So really, accepting that change is natural should be integrated into our construction of trails. To me, sustainable means that if we walked away, could this ecosystem naturally recover from what we have done in a reasonable timeframe. But instead, we have this definition of sustainable (in the trail context) that emphasizes resisting those changes. As such, our sanctioned trails actually become much more impactful and LESS sustainable from a broader environmental perspective.
For example, if we abandoned boogie nights, how long would it take for those big built up berms to erode and restore the forest to the flatter surface that was there before. Definitely decades, maybe even centuries? Doesn't that seem kind of weird, that we are making long term alterations to the forest, but then celebrating that its sustainable, because of the very fact that it will be long term? I consider this in contract with many of the loamers we ride. Lots of them are on the top of the duff, with minimal built up features. Many of these surface impacts get erased by a winter of precipitation and run off. Lots of these trails turn to shit, but often they just get abandoned because of that, which lets them recover back to their natural state in a relatively short term. Others end up getting built up to be more sustainable (in the Mtn Bikers definition) and resembling the built up sanctioned trails.
Cambodia is an example of the latter, and I am sure we will see those alternate lines recover very quickly. I just think it is a great example of this weird paradigm of sustainability; the changes certainly will make it more sustainable and less maintenance, but in a broader environmental perspective I don't know if its an improvement at all.
Anyway I have just been thinking about this alot, and hoping someone can tear everything I just said apart so I can get back to work!
Something Syncro said that stuck with me is that when a trail is built, the hydrology of the forest changes. At first I balked at the concept, but I think there is some merit to that statement. Soil compaction changes infiltration rates, trenching interrupts overland flow, and if the trail erodes to hardpan, groundwater flow is changed. Be mindful of this when building trail. The changes resulting from the existence of trail are often quickly reversed by the forest when the trail is no longer used, but in some cases the changes are more permanent ie. machine built trails. You can see evidence of human impact on forest hydrology in old skid roads and the water they collect/re route, for example. So in that respect I see Coilers point: the majority of the impact comes from trail construction rather than trail use. However, when a fall line loamer erodes to hardpan, it could result in a permanent seep. So IMO that's why trail routing and upkeep is important, to avoid having trails become trenches, and because eroded boulder trenches aren't good for much of anything.
There is also a lot of focus on sediment transport. The forestry operations of the past caused massive sediment transports. Singletrack trails, not so much. But erosion does happen, and it looks bad, and it can clog up streams and make them less livable for stream creatures. So while mtb/hike trails will never have the impact of heavy industry, erosion is a still a factor in sustainability despite the forest being able to recover from it relatively quickly.
When I think of a sustainable trail that's what comes to mind ^^^. The forest is a living entity, and just because we're destroying it in many other places for the sake of human consumption, it doesn't mean we should be doing the same thing when we're recreating in nature. We should be thinking of ourselves as caretakers of the planet, not masters of it. There is of course a balance that can be struck as natural events can devastate the environment too, but we have to be smart about where and how we do things.
Edit: I'd add that rider behaviour is just as important as good trail design.
Last edited by: syncro on July 29, 2024, 4:36 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Forum jump:
