Live tree cut out on Good Sir Martin

[HTML_REMOVED]DRAMA![HTML_REMOVED]

why not re-introduce it as a feature on the trail by simply splinting the cut tree back to it's stump with a few scraps of wood and a couple of nails, prop it back into place and voila! same curved tree that people have to ride under! If you don't want to use nails on the stump you can easily lash it back together with some strong twine, bit of maintenance every few years will keep it together forever and it'll be a story to tell as well.

Sure the tree will be dead but I think its value to the ecosystem was pretty minimal to begin with so you'll be maintaining the aesthetics and vision you had as a builder while showing whoever cut the tree that you actually cared enough to re-introduce it :)

Seems pretty easy to me, win/win situation

…aaaaaaaaaaand, as usual getting out on the bike and off the forums might do some people a bit of good here ;)

also, you still haven't addressed the question about where do you draw the line with your stance. if for example i feel that the new ramp to drop on trail xyz doesn't flow well am i justified in changing or removing it? how do you measure what's acceptable to change and what isn't?

I have answered my opinion a few times Mark, why do you always need to ask the same redundant questions to kick the horse I don't understand, but I'll state it straight - if voluntary work is done on public property, you should have no right to feel like you were 'vandalized' if someone changes that work. If it is my private property that you want to mess with, we're going to have words. Really, really simple.

I have answered my opinion a few times Mark, why do you always need to ask the same redundant questions to kick the horse I don't understand, but I'll state it straight - if voluntary work is done on public property, you should have no right to feel like you were 'vandalized' if someone changes that work. If it is my private property that you want to mess with, we're going to have words. Really, really simple.

well, i'm glad that most people don't take that attitude that they can do whatever they want to a trail that someone else has created.

Thank you Syncro and others for feeling our pain.

I try to avoid posting here as it isn't very productive. I should have discouraged Penny (Mudhoney) from posting but I didn't as I felt it too. "Vandalised" was my word. It's how it feels to me. The internet is all about personal opinions and this is mine/ours.

And for context, we chose that particular line because of the low hanging tree. We dug the trail down a couple feet under it, raised the tree up a foot or so, and sculpted the trail bed to slow things down. We wanted the trail to be aesthetically pleasing and this was a nice feature. I guess we're just a couple of dreamers.

It's just our silly naive pipe dream, but all we're saying is, "Please respect your trail builders".

Well as always, the forums sure are entertaining. :)

I'm not going to argue with anyone over how I should or shouldn't feel; that's just silly. I changed the title to reflect the facts of what happened, no feelings.

I do believe these were misplaced good intentions.

And, as Syncro and others correctly perceived, my intent is not to shame; I simply hope that going forward, if others see something they believe is an issue on the trail, they will let us know about it rather than take matters into their own hands. It is about respect for each other.

Clearing a drain, moving dead fall off the trail, or similar work are great to have people help with. To me, cutting a live tree that was not a hazard doesn't fall into the same category.

If others are keen to help us, it's not that hard to get in touch, and we are always happy to have the help. One of best rewards of this project are the friends we made.

the debate really isn't over the tree, it's abut the disrespect shown to the effort of the builder. i also don't see this thread as shaming, but a request saying "please don't mess with my work, ask me if you feel something needs help".

It isn't about having a funeral for a tree. It's about respecting someone's vision/toil.

As time goes by fewer and fewer riders will remember the bad days when trails were being decommissioned and there was a legitimate threat of heavily restricting mtb'ing on the north shore. People will think that 'it was always this good' and be unaware that their actions, however small, may aggrivate the other stakeholders.

Sure, some people may think that cutting this tree is not a big deal, but it is. It is one small piece of a risk that mtb'ing on the north shore carries, that our actions may eventually create additional restrictions on our access.

Anything that we do as mtb'ers should always keep in mind that people like Tineke Kaarl (sp?) had sympathizers on the shore, there are still a lot of people who don't like what we do. Small actions when compiled can lead to future restrictions.

Hey, I didn't mean any disrespect to the builders. It's totally appreciated. The work is amazing almost everywhere. We're lucky to live here and enjoy the fruits of the labour and vision of the trail builders. No doubt about that. Perhaps we who don't shovel as much as others should express this gratitude more often. And it would lead to less posts of frustration and grumpiness from the trail artists. Almost every argument here is from an initial failure to communicate, or show gratitude, that snowballs.
:heart:

Hey, I didn't mean any disrespect to the builders. It's totally appreciated. The work is amazing almost everywhere. We're lucky to live here and enjoy the fruits of the labour and vision of the trail builders. No doubt about that. Perhaps we who don't shovel as much as others should express this gratitude more often. And it would lead to less posts of frustration and grumpiness from the trail artists. Almost every argument here is from an initial failure to communicate, or show gratitude, that snowballs.
:heart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaG5SAw1n0c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaG5SAw1n0c

:woot:

why not re-introduce it as a feature on the trail by simply splinting the cut tree back to it's stump with a few scraps of wood and a couple of nails, prop it back into place and voila! same curved tree that people have to ride under! If you don't want to use nails on the stump you can easily lash it back together with some strong twine, bit of maintenance every few years will keep it together forever and it'll be a story to tell as well.

Sure the tree will be dead but I think its value to the ecosystem was pretty minimal to begin with so you'll be maintaining the aesthetics and vision you had as a builder while showing whoever cut the tree that you actually cared enough to re-introduce it :)

Seems pretty easy to me, win/win situation

…aaaaaaaaaaand, as usual getting out on the bike and off the forums might do some people a bit of good here ;)

This. A while ago someone who was "well intentioned" cut out some log rollovers that had been on a trail since it was built. The original builder went in and put them back together with some metal strips. The feature is back and I think the person got the message because they haven't been touched since.

So let me get this straight. A bent over treeling (it is not big enough to be a tree) is considered a feature that is cut out that NO ONE has to overcome, but everything is being done one such trees on DOWN trails that might be a feature is cut out? They pave all the trails removing any feature, undulation, or "interruption" but make a big fuss over something that you have to duck your head on with another UP trail (that is redundant and unnecessary on Seymour, I was unaware Old Buck and PB were unsatisfactory) and that is enough to rile riders? Call me old but this is beyond pathetic. What would today's mountain biking community think of the Chainsaw Massacre on Cypress in 1999?

And for all the trail builders out there: I applaud all work, in any form. But unless you personally own the land, it is a given someone is going to come along and do some work, contrary to your thinking. This is what a community is. If you don't like anyone doing any work on "your" trail, buy the land and make it private property and involve lawyers etc…… most trail builders need to know that the trail they make or work on is not "their baby" but public domain. I did not like what was done to Seventh, C+C, Espresso, Executioner, but since it was not my personal domain I could not do anything despite the ruination (IMO) of classic lines. Builders do not have the last word, nor should they. If they do, guess what that is: dictatorship.

I thought about cutting it the first time I saw it (usually have a saw with me). But decided to wait and see. I don't mind ducking under stuff.

Pretty sure this was not "vandalism" but a good-intention-ed move. Too bad it annoyed the builders.

Builders do not have the last word, nor should they. If they do, guess what that is: dictatorship.

Builders do have the last word, as they should. See Tom's post above for an example.

Also really funny to compare people spending their own time and money building trails to a dictator. I guess some kind of benevolent dictator who spends hundreds and hundreds of hours giving gifts to the community?

Builders have always had the last word, and always will. If you don't like that, don't ride the trail, or build your own. If it wasn't a live tree we are talking about you can bet people would have already gone up to put things back how they were and make sure they stay that way.

I think all the builders want is some respect. Sounds like the entitled crew here thinks that is too much to ask for. Guess it's just like those people who feel entitled to strava every trail they ride and destroy loamers in the wet. Me, me me!