It is Official- this thread has gone full circle, and we are back where we started.
I am with thewwkayaker on this one.
This conversation keeps coming up since, clearly, it is evident a shared concern about trajectory and momentum of trail works.
How can thewwkayaker, or any of us else, "fight for the right for Gnar" without raising it the conversation?
The initial thread was completely fair and on side.
- Yes, everyone hear's the Volunteer call to Action- and by doing so a Director of Gnar volunteer would likely realize that it is untenable for the land manager's on those mountains, and so NSMBA does the best that they can do. I fully support NSMBA since most of us do not know the full constraints of time, money, effort, advocating, TAP relationship building/managing, trail day's or Twoonie planning- and the Directors also have careers and family's/relationships/friends too!
- Yes, everyone hear's other's concern for maintaining some trails that are "Not built for All."
How can we have a conversation about it- there was a great idea finding out if the "minority" is in fact a minority- I was prepared to put effort into that and help the community and set up the survey.
I will take from this thread the following good points raised: keep it on another mountain.
I think if the NSMBA could have, they would have, kept as much as they could. I do not think a Director of Gnar is realistic, I was tongue in cheek there but trying to illicit more positive chat on it.
Have a great day!
PS Gnar trails DO NOT NEED TO HAVE TO RUIN A FOREST- they are terrain determined trails- allow them to exist! How does Empress ruin the forest/ Boogie Man headwall / Dale's rock / ect understand the common denominator in them and understand that rider's make decisions based on their fear factor.
I am loving all the buff, but have to admit, after a week of riding a fair bit of 'gnar', it would be nice to have more. It is too bad those trails ruin the forest.