No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

… I can't really picture someone staying at the Shangri-La for a week and driving to and from the North Shore with their dirty mountain bike everyday to ride our trails.

My experience with BCBR is a good counter to your assumption.

While I dont have the numbers but it always seems to me that 1/2 or more are not from BC each year. Many are internationals that spend 5 to +10k just to attend the wk's race. Specifically, there was one year where a group of baller Mexicans racers stayed around in the area for at least a week after the race to 'recover'. I can assure you they were not staying at shitty places and a couple ended up renting bikes and touring around trails in NV and Whis. But ya, my point is "Fancy Hotels" will cater to this level of guest and certainly deal with their muddy bikes (for a fee of course).

My experience with BCBR is a good counter to your assumption.

While I dont have the numbers but it always seems to me that 1/2 or more are not from BC each year. Many are internationals that spend 5 to +10k just to attend the wk's race. Specifically, there was one year where a group of baller Mexicans racers stayed around in the area for at least a week after the race to 'recover'. I can assure you they were not staying at shitty places and a couple ended up renting bikes and touring around trails in NV and Whis. But ya, my point is "Fancy Hotels" will cater to this level of guest and certainly deal with their muddy bikes (for a fee of course).

I guess that's where BPPs future development will come in. Can't really think of much accommodation high up on the shore. It's all down around Lonsdale.

Lots of media activity today, I tried hard to make it clear to the media that this wasn't just a MTB issue, but an issue for all users. It's also a big issue for recreation and the local economy in North Van.

The Federation of Mountain Clubs of BC would agree. I'm told they've had a flurry of correspondence about the CMHC closures and have emailed DNV Council with their concerns.

This isn't a bike thing. The closures affect all users of recreational trails. CMHC's actions harm a major component of the North Shore lifestyle.

I know right? I saw the post the other day and then Cam published his article and now mysteriously it's been deleted.

Don't like the proof that, however small, you had a hand in impeding access for all trail users, Monica? Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

The post was reported to FB for some reason and then deleted. Maybe there was a threat or something?

The post was reported to FB for some reason and then deleted. Maybe there was a threat or something?

I certainly hope not, as that would be very bad. I certainly hope people can stay civil during this whole situation.

I made an assumption that the post was deleted due to your publishing a screen capture of it. Regardless, the CMHC responded directly to that Facebook post and, however small or large, she was gunning for mountain bikers but ended up helping restrict access to all. I hope she's proud of herself.

Fingers crossed a productive dialogue can be opened between all parties and a swift resolution can be agreed upon that's mutually beneficial to all trail users.

Here's my take on this situation for those who may have missed it. I went deep on the ownership trail back to the CMHC as well.

30 Mt Seymour Trails Closed by CMHC

The post was reported to FB for some reason and then deleted. Maybe there was a threat or something?

The rider in the photo requested it be taken down. Apparently the discussion between them was civil and understanding. He just didn't want to be associated with this mess in any way on either side.

I know right? I saw the post the other day and then Cam published his article and now mysteriously it's been deleted.

Don't like the proof that, however small, you had a hand in impeding access for all trail users, Monica? Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

I took a screenshot just in case that happened.

The rider in the photo requested it be taken down. Apparently the discussion between them was civil and understanding. He just didn't want to be associated with this mess in any way on either side.

That's good to hear.

I know right? I saw the post the other day and then Cam published his article and now mysteriously it's been deleted.

Don't like the proof that, however small, you had a hand in impeding access for all trail users, Monica? Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

My post above is a bit overly accusatory in tone then, and I apologize for that.

Sent my thoughts to Mr. Bond as a Seymour area homeowner, hoping every bit helps.

A sincere Good luck and thank you to everyone making an effort to find a political resolution to this issue.

(Hopefully this post isnt deemed too hardcore by old Dirty :fu: , and hopefully I have adequately conformed my opinion to the will of the nsmb masses.)

I like how global ended their article with a strong insinuation that people should ignore the signs.

and I'm the fucking bad guy??!!

Straight dudes don't talk about fight club.

Gay dudes don't talk about circle jerks, except to ensure the uber-hetero administurbator uses the phrase correctly :-)

And we do not want to trip running away from CMHC backhoes and end up falling on a frog on sacred First Nations land.

Uncle Scrooge

Wow, kind of offensive (and nonsensical), "Drunk Uncle" Scrooge. lol

…but ya, Im the dick ;)

I moved here from the UK for the Sea to Sky trials and now I'm a huge asset to Canada.

Thing is BC governments at all levels are remarkably dumb in not realizing the tourism potential and the impact of trail closures. Either that or they don't really give a crap about tourism and it's effect on the local economy.

Look at the empty wealth display mansions on Cypress and Stone Bridge in Whistler that dissect the trails. The construction planned for Squamish that'll wipe out some of the best slab trails. If the government had any idea it'd buy all that land and let tourism BC market the shit out of the trail systems.

Interesting. I would suggest they want their cake (development) and to eat it too (tourism). This is not entirely impossible. In fact, in many cases, good relations with land-owners have proven critical to trail retention and preserving access. It is inevitable that some trails will be lost, even if "zero trail loss" is achieved through re-routes. However, there are many examples of MTB groups working cooperatively with either land-owners or resource-title holder (yes, different matter) to keep trail access available. Many land-owners recognize that their social license in the community includes their relationship with recreation and nature enthusiasts, and that appeasing these groups facilitates public hearings on the development and enhances the marketability of their product. However that gets worked out is a mixture of the Govt (including local) sticking their nose in for concessions when granting permits for rezoning etc, along with bike groups working to develop relationships with the landowners and title-holders.

How all that applies to the CMHC situation is for the other experts here to debate, and is not altogether clear given their nebulous status as a govt agency, their capacity for managing their land, and their relationships with community and local state agencies. I'm rather interested in the "other experts" takes on this. I think the answer to this will be key to the outcome of this situation.