Unwanted Cypress building

It's not a problem unique to the NSMBA. Trail organizations try their best but it doesn't mean the government is responsive.

Here is an example for SORCA that discusses upcoming decommissioning in Squamish:

https://backcountrybc.ca/document-category-layout/issue-specific-documents/sea-to-sky-issues/shannon-basin

You could submit a freedom of information request to Metro Vancouver to see what is going on behind the scenes. They don't charge for them and are very responsive.

https://metrovancouver.org/boards/corporate-officer/freedom-of-information-and-protection-of-privacy

It's as easy as emailing something like:

I am writing to request the following document(s) in an electronic form.

- All reports regarding mountain bike trails, unsanctioned trails, or trail mapping within Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve produced between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2025

------------

I am writing to request the following document(s) in an electronic form.

- All emails, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes regarding joint meetings between Metro Vancouver, District of North Vancouver, BC Parks, and/or RSTBC that are regarding parks and trails between January 1, 2024, and January 18, 2025.

------------

I am writing to request the following document(s) in an electronic form.

- All emails, meeting agendas, and meeting minutes with the North Shore Mountain Bike Association between January 1, 2024 and January 18, 2025.

Similarly you could also request reports from the District of North Vancouver. Here are a few to start off:

The 2018/2019 Seymour Conditions Assessment is uniquely bad, haha.

Posted by: LoamtoHome

If people maintain what they ride, there would be way less of a problem.  Unfortunately, 99% of the biking community just care about getting their latest fix.   Sad.

How would that reduce the proliferation of unsanctioned trails and the number.of people riding them, or change the land owner's policy of zero tolerance for rogue building?

RE: NS News article, traveling elsewhere to get the trail experience you're looking for, I get it. Bike park trails like a line or dirt merchant will never exist on the shore. Neither will high alpine trails or rolling groomed green singletrack.

I feel a more relevant (less inflammatory) comment would be to highlight the efforts the nsmba has made over the last few years to expand the network and include difficult trails. As Loamtohome has pointed out 3 times in this thread, sanctioned cypress trails are in great condition; they are a success story in expanding the nsmba's net to include challenging, DH race training tracks, something that was missing from the network. Yes, they were unsanctioned not long ago. The nsmba follows the wishes of the land manager re sanctioning. 

To be clear, it is metro labor that goes into closing trails, not nsmba. I'm not sure why the corkscrew sabotage was included in this article as it seems unrelated. 

One of my motivations for building is to create trails that I want to ride locally so I don't have to travel to ride great trails. The shore is unique and IMO the best place on earth to ride, and building/maintenance makes that happen. If you want to make a difference and don't know where to start, come to a trail day. There are two happening next weekend, both are building new features. 

As mentioned the nsmba serves an important purpose which is advocating to mtb trails at the land managers tables. For that reason they have my support.

PS the NS News has a history of publishing controversial articles when it comes to mountain biking. They could be stirring the pot.

Posted by: Kever

To be clear, it is Metro Vancouver labor that goes into closing trails, not nsmba.

To also be clear, it's Metro Vancouver's decision to decommission them, not nsmba.

I wonder if the blowdown on Metro's High School climb has been cleared yet...

Posted by: skooks

Posted by: LoamtoHome

If people maintain what they ride, there would be way less of a problem. Unfortunately, 99% of the biking community just care about getting their latest fix. Sad.

How would that reduce the proliferation of unsanctioned trails and the number.of people riding them, or change the land owner's policy of zero tolerance for rogue building?

people go out and build new stuff instead of fixing or maintaining what's there. Pretty soon it's just a complete mess of unmaintained trails and that's when (alot of times) land mangers step in. There's way more of a chance of trails getting put into the system if they are maintained and built well.  But it's also the right thing to do.  Too many moochers out there.

Posted by: Kever

RE: NS News article, traveling elsewhere to get the trail experience you're looking for, I get it. Bike park trails like a line or dirt merchant will never exist on the shore. Neither will high alpine trails or rolling groomed green singletrack.

I feel a more relevant (less inflammatory) comment would be to highlight the efforts the nsmba has made over the last few years to expand the network and include difficult trails. As Loamtohome has pointed out 3 times in this thread, sanctioned cypress trails are in great condition; they are a success story in expanding the nsmba's net to include challenging, DH race training tracks, something that was missing from the network. Yes, they were unsanctioned not long ago. The nsmba follows the wishes of the land manager re sanctioning. 

To be clear, it is metro labor that goes into closing trails, not nsmba. I'm not sure why the corkscrew sabotage was included in this article as it seems unrelated. 

One of my motivations for building is to create trails that I want to ride locally so I don't have to travel to ride great trails. The shore is unique and IMO the best place on earth to ride, and building/maintenance makes that happen. If you want to make a difference and don't know where to start, come to a trail day. There are two happening next weekend, both are building new features. 

As mentioned the nsmba serves an important purpose which is advocating to mtb trails at the land managers tables. For that reason they have my support.

PS the NS News has a history of publishing controversial articles when it comes to mountain biking. They could be stirring the pot.

Yeah, I get the feeling that the NS News is presenting this article in a certain light in the interest of generating clicks/views.

Here's hoping the forthcoming Grouse mountain bike park/trails will provide some additional trail choices/flavours for those riders who don't feel the current sanctioned trail inventory is enough...

Yes and the grouse bike park should take some of the pressure off the volunteer maintained trails.

Squamish is mentioned above, and I've also seen it commented that Squamish is more 'progressive'. 

I don't think many people realize how few trails here are 'sanctioned' and how little land is protected from development. Luckily and thankfully at the moment, it seems on the surface of it at least, that most of the land owners don't seem to care, and let people do what they want on their land as they are looking at the big picture. 

Pretty sure Bob Cheema doesn't give a monkeys toss about mountain biking, but as people keep flocking to Squamish to buy property and ride bikes on (unsanctioned...) trails it will just increase the value and demand for his land for example. He promises the 'MTB Reserve' or whatever he calls it, but that also happens to be the land that would be the hardest to build on.... There's a whole load of political posturing from both sides going on re. that land and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

A good chuck of Diamondhead is zoned for rural development (dibs on a nice cabin at the top of McCloud please). We are going to lose a chunk of Valleycliffe's trails. etc etc.

So much for being progressive. One day we'll lose most of it, and there will be a collective 'oh fuck' moment as property prices fall. I don't think people will stay for the pickleball courts... The developers will move on and make a killing elsewhere. 

I can't help be a little amused by the fact that unsanctioned trail builders (like me in my own small way....) are the ones that created much of the wealth, yet they don't get a dime out of it :D

Trails don't have to be explicitly protected from development so long as they are in places with significant hurdles to development.

The Squamish lands up in the Diamond Head are ultra long term. There is nearly zero chance of seeing utilities, sewers, water pressure and other infrastructure up there  for decades. I don't think they are zoned for development at this time, so much as they were purchased/set aside for the Squamish First Nation who is thinking about their long-term futures, not just the short term. The Squamish First Nation has a lot of involvement with many other land parcels which are far far more palatable for development than something half-way up the mountain with astronomical development costs. 

The Cheema Lands also face issues in water services, but certainly could be developed within my (riding) lifetime. Still that will likely take decades or more to reach the borders of their property, and only then will further advances occur into the Alice Lake area. The Valleycliffe trails have always been on private land, and Mr. Fast has been pretty generous in letting MTB use them for decades while denying that privilege to dirtbikers (trials ok).  Some trails will be lost up there for certain, although I feel it is remarkable how little was lost to the first wave of Crumpit Woods.....most of the good stuff is farther back than what is being eyed up at this time.

Saying we will "lose most of it" is more than a bit pessimistic. Lots of new trails have been opened up (legit ones too), and if some of the ones closer to town are incrementally lost to development, I hardly think that will transform Squamish into a no-riding town or tank the real estate market.

Come on little shooter, it ain't so bad. Turn that frown upside down.

Posted by: cerealkilla_

Come on little shooter, it ain't so bad. Turn that frown upside down.

LOL! Yeah I know none of this will happen in the short term, or probably within my Squamish (biking) time, more of an observation with regards Squamish being known as progressive. Extremely lucky would be a better description. I know from a pretty good source that BC Parks were looking closer at the loamers off Diamondhead (that all start on BC Parks land....) a while back. Nothing is forever. A Starbucks and wellness clinic might be on 'my' trails in the future ha.

the entitlement of Squamish residents and visitors to recreate and build trails on private property and then indignantly demand perpetual use and access to those trails is some next level shit...if you like your own private property rights, you shouldn't begrudge other people theirs. I don't think people understand how accommodating those property owners have been in this town. I'm not sure I would be if I owned any of those parcels.