Unwanted Cypress building

Posted by: FlipFantasia

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.

Oh I think this is a fine bit of politicking on behalf of the developers too. They want to stay in the good graces of an active community, and sell their future projects as tied to outdoor recreation....The trails (as tiny hands pointed out) are definitely part of their marketing platform. Half of them (see Polygon) have mountain biking on their brochures. I am sure their marketing agents are all in favor of "appearing as good neighbors". So long as there are no serious liabilities, I don't think they really care.   I think there is a misconception that mountain bike trails may make it harder to develop some land. I doubt that is the case, even if it is a common belief. The developers can just offer some crudely drawn map of how they plan to retain recreation values, and town hall is happy. The real thing that matters is infrastructure, which is why the Cheema's don't have a green light.

Still, I agree with what you say too. There is absolutely entitlement in some users who think that their digging in a few trails somehow entitles them to a say on future land-use decisions. I would consider that equal parts naivety. SORCA may try to gently influence and work with Developers on some trail retention plans, but they know full well that any continued access depends entirely on the good graces of the landowner, and not on any "pressure" they may seek to exert.

Long, but very related story. I am a forester, and a few years ago I was working for a woodlot owner. For those who don't know, most woodlots are on crown land, but give the woodlot owner a lot more management rights than a typical crown forest license. This woodlot is near a community in the interior with a very active bike scene, and in 2010 (ish) guys started building trails within my clients woodlot. He was great about it, said "no problem I will work around it wherever I can, but this is a working forest, so expect impacts to these trails as my harvest plans need." Trail builders were stoked, community was stoked. 

2022. This is now an extremely popular trail area. My client is doing his thing, and has a new cutblock. He adjusted the geometry so it didn't overlap with the main trail in this zone, with a 20m buffer off the trail. He completed the harvest, and post harvest there was quite a bit of blow down from the edge into the trail. This is very common.

The riding community in this area absolutely went nuts. I was actually hired on, because there was so much controversy around this blowdown, and that is an area I specialize in. The windthrow wasn't even that bad, but the community was totally outraged. Of course, all the guys that built these trails in agreement with this woodlot owner are out of the picture, and the new generation is completely at odds with the woodlot owner.

I was chatting with him about it, and he basically said "if I could go back in time, I would rip out all those trails the second I found them." He played nice, and it cost him not only money in extra planning and hiring me, but also he actually lost goodwill in the community, because everyone perceived it has him taking something away through his work.

All that is to say: we mountain bikers can be so toxically entitled with these trails. The landowners and land managers have very little obligation to allow trails, and more and more they are getting disincentivized to allow trails on their land. We really need to be better about not only working with land managers, but also being more receptive to their perspectives.

Posted by: Coiler

All that is to say: we mountain bikers can be so toxically entitled with these trails. The landowners and land managers have very little obligation to allow trails, and more and more they are getting disincentivized to allow trails on their land. We really need to be better about not only working with land managers, but also being more receptive to their perspectives.

Yup.

The average mountain biker is incredibly uninformed when it comes to land usage and the how's and why's of trails get to exist. They tend to not take a lot of responsibility for the trails they ride and seem to have this magical idea that the lands the trails are on are there for their exclusive use. This is readily apparent in many of the online discussions over the recent statement of closures by Metro on the lands they manage.

How we use the land and why we get to use it needs to be something that gets discussed on a regular basis. This includes talking about what is our responsibility in the existence of the trails we use. It is not a free for all out there and having that attitude usually comes with some consequences. I tend to have a love-hate relationship with rogue building. On one hand it is necessary in that the trail network would not exist without it. However, it also jeopardizes the relationships between land owner/managers with the greater riding public. My guess is that if there wasn't the shit stew of haphazard lines up top on Seymour by CBC, then trails like NN might have a better chance of sticking around.

This ties right in to what Dean is requesting for the trails on Cypress and it comes down to one simple world - respect. Respect for the trails, respect for other people and respect for yourself. Respect for the trails and other people should be obvious, while respect for yourself means not acting like an ignorant and entitled pig and making a mess wherever you go.

One of my motivators for maintaining existing lines rather than building new ones over the years was that a well maintained trail network would be more tolerated by land managers than a bunch of unmaintained redundant trails in a poorly planned network.

Posted by: cooperquinn

My point is, which is more difficult - Grannies, or Boogienights? 

And the answer is, it depends on who you are, and what you like. I'd wager a lot of the folks who like the trail experience Grannies provides go around the jumps on Boogienights. That's not throwing shade at those riders, it's trying to recognize that 'trail difficulty' means a lot of different things, and manifests in different ways. 

"Anyways, RIDING IS FUN. " 

here, here.

Two different riders altogether in my experience.  Had you been around when Grannies, or Crippler, or Bookwus was new you would understand this.  There was a reason flow/jump trails were not made back in the infancy of riding the Shore.....we knew they were expensive, took huge work to maintain and why would you want that when the natural terrain offered so much?  If you love jumps Whistler and jump tracks abound.  Grannies is unique and precious.  Jumps take nothing really....practice and speed.  Grannies takes skill, thought and dedication....you might not make it and take a fall or hit....and have to get back up...  Jump trails are all flow and so long as you know your skill and are going fast enough you will make it.  I have had many days on Grannies where I thought I was up to the task but the trail told me otherwise.  Ditto for Crippler.  

You are comparing apples to oranges which is understandable for someone whom was born and raised here .

Posted by: [email protected]

I beg to differ that “real riders don’t ride e-bikes.” Unless Wade Simmons and Andreas Hestler aren’t “real riders” not to mention one of the most prolific Cypress builders of late. Lots of other builders as well use them for both work and play.

I don’t mind someone saying I’m not a “real rider” but your generalization is on the absurd end of the spectrum.

I’d be more inclined to say that about riders who exclusively shuttle, but that’s not true either.

Wade and Andreas are most likely being paid to promote the ebikes.  I would expect you to know this.

Posted by: cooperquinn

I've been here 20 years - while that certainly doesn't encompass all the history, I'm not sure it's "recent".

But here's a question - how many riders did you see back in the "heyday" when everything was kept secret? Because depending on the survey and study you're looking at, mountain biking is up somewhere north of 600% from 2007ish-2017ish (I'm not aware of anything more recent than 2018.). It's nothing more than my guess, but I'd bet it's easily doubled again since 2017 - that's 10x more riders than the 2000s give or take, when there was already a significant expansion from the late '90s when GMG etc were built. The odds of someone finding your secret trail have gone up by a corresponding order of magnitude. If you have a dog, or ever go for a hike, you probably know how easy it is to find even the best kept secrets. Pick a contour, follow it. And if you want to see a really hard trail that's way off the grid, there's one listed on the LSCR's list of potential closures. 

I'd also suggest that there's some very significantly challenging lines still being built and ridden off the map. But sure, do more people ride Expresso than Grannies? Absolutely. And while I'm glad lines like Grannies still exist, and trails like Pipeline have been revitalized, I don't believe the difference in usage is purely a function of "difficulty". It's also a function of how riding and the trails many people enjoy have changed; slow-speed technical jank doesn't appeal to everyone, in the same way that Boogienights doesn't appeal to everyone. The coolest part of riding is the variety of what "going for a ride" can mean, and different people enjoy different things. 

The builder on NN knew it wouldn't be secret forever - as I said, they figured two years. Which turned out to be about correct.

Inclusivity is what is killing us.  Mountain biking is neither a right or an entitlement.  I can assure you, as I was there, that Grannies/Bookwus/Ladies et al was the norm, and you either did it or went home.  You either improved or got beat up...I can assure you there were many whom took their licks to clean Reaper, Ladies or Bookwus an be proud of that fact.  But now, due to woke inclusivity (as noted by the NSMBA with a DEI director) they think that it is everyone's right to ride and be in the woods, which is completely contrary to how or what riding is about.  And from what I see, most of the loamers are diversions from trails to avoid the features drops or jank (of whatever the trail might have) to make the most "uninvolving" experience around.  When you cater to the lowest common denominator don't underestimate how low that can go.  From my many decades of riding experience, it seems to reach a new low every year, and I see it.

The amount of contradiction in your statements there is... interesting. But you don't actually want to have a discussion about the range of trail types, the different skillsets involved in different trail styles, and how consequences vary at different speeds and amplitude, you just want to... I dunno. Yell at clouds that your imagination thinks spell DEI, and hold Grannies on a pedastle (it's a fun trail, occasionally. Believe it or not I can ride all of it, but slowly ka-chunking around just isn't usually what I feel like going to do. I'm glad that experience exists for those who want it.) 

Trails and bikes are better than they've ever been. The diversity - from Grannies to Bobsled to Bridle to Wink to Boogienights - is part of what makes it great.

You also clearly haven't ridden most of the trails on Seymour named in the recent announcements if you think they're all just loamer braids to avoid features, so I'm out.

Polymath, you have no idea of how much of a dinosaur you look like by saying that.

Posted by: Polymath

Inclusivity is what is killing us.  Mountain biking is neither a right or an entitlement. 

But now, due to woke inclusivity (as noted by the NSMBA with a DEI director) they think that it is everyone's right to ride and be in the woods, which is completely contrary to how or what riding is about. 

Came back to quote this just because of how outlandish it is.

Efforts to include marginalized groups in outdoor recreation has no negative impact on that trails they, and we, use.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: Coiler

All that is to say: we mountain bikers can be so toxically entitled with these trails. The landowners and land managers have very little obligation to allow trails, and more and more they are getting disincentivized to allow trails on their land. We really need to be better about not only working with land managers, but also being more receptive to their perspectives.

Yup.

The average mountain biker is incredibly uninformed when it comes to land usage and the how's and why's of trails get to exist. They tend to not take a lot of responsibility for the trails they ride and seem to have this magical idea that the lands the trails are on are there for their exclusive use. This is readily apparent in many of the online discussions over the recent statement of closures by Metro on the lands they manage.

How we use the land and why we get to use it needs to be something that gets discussed on a regular basis. This includes talking about what is our responsibility in the existence of the trails we use. It is not a free for all out there and having that attitude usually comes with some consequences. I tend to have a love-hate relationship with rogue building. On one hand it is necessary in that the trail network would not exist without it. However, it also jeopardizes the relationships between land owner/managers with the greater riding public. My guess is that if there wasn't the shit stew of haphazard lines up top on Seymour by CBC, then trails like NN might have a better chance of sticking around.

This ties right in to what Dean is requesting for the trails on Cypress and it comes down to one simple world - respect. Respect for the trails, respect for other people and respect for yourself. Respect for the trails and other people should be obvious, while respect for yourself means not acting like an ignorant and entitled pig and making a mess wherever you go.

The reality is that if you build and ride unsanctioned trails, you need to expect to lose that trail at any time. And its ok to be upset to lose an unsanctioned trail you really like, because you are losing out on a riding experience you really enjoy; its not cool to get mad at the land managers or trail associations. I'm bummed to lose NN, I really love that trail; but I get it. 

My personal hot take: this isn't a bad thing. The thing that I like about these rogue trails, particularly on seymour, is that they have such a unique and fun natural character. They tend to devolve over time, as ruts form, and lose that natural character, and in a lot of cases just kind of suck to ride once that happens. When these trails get closed, it gives the forest and soil a chance to recover, which if the trails is natural and less built, can happen shockingly quickly in this environment. In the meantime, new lines open up, which have that similar natural character. I think it would be so cool (and almost certainly never happen) if MV just adopted a policy of saying; look these trails are fine for now, but we are going to close them as soon as the impact reaches a certain level. It also makes it way easier for a land manager; decommissioning a less built up trail is way easier and less costly. I would love to know what the eventual bill ends up for taking out NN, and if they will even succeed.

Posted by: Polymath

Posted by: cooperquinn

I've been here 20 years - while that certainly doesn't encompass all the history, I'm not sure it's "recent".

But here's a question - how many riders did you see back in the "heyday" when everything was kept secret? Because depending on the survey and study you're looking at, mountain biking is up somewhere north of 600% from 2007ish-2017ish (I'm not aware of anything more recent than 2018.). It's nothing more than my guess, but I'd bet it's easily doubled again since 2017 - that's 10x more riders than the 2000s give or take, when there was already a significant expansion from the late '90s when GMG etc were built. The odds of someone finding your secret trail have gone up by a corresponding order of magnitude. If you have a dog, or ever go for a hike, you probably know how easy it is to find even the best kept secrets. Pick a contour, follow it. And if you want to see a really hard trail that's way off the grid, there's one listed on the LSCR's list of potential closures.

I'd also suggest that there's some very significantly challenging lines still being built and ridden off the map. But sure, do more people ride Expresso than Grannies? Absolutely. And while I'm glad lines like Grannies still exist, and trails like Pipeline have been revitalized, I don't believe the difference in usage is purely a function of "difficulty". It's also a function of how riding and the trails many people enjoy have changed; slow-speed technical jank doesn't appeal to everyone, in the same way that Boogienights doesn't appeal to everyone. The coolest part of riding is the variety of what "going for a ride" can mean, and different people enjoy different things.

The builder on NN knew it wouldn't be secret forever - as I said, they figured two years. Which turned out to be about correct.

Inclusivity is what is killing us. Mountain biking is neither a right or an entitlement. I can assure you, as I was there, that Grannies/Bookwus/Ladies et al was the norm, and you either did it or went home. You either improved or got beat up...I can assure you there were many whom took their licks to clean Reaper, Ladies or Bookwus an be proud of that fact. But now, due to woke inclusivity (as noted by the NSMBA with a DEI director) they think that it is everyone's right to ride and be in the woods, which is completely contrary to how or what riding is about. And from what I see, most of the loamers are diversions from trails to avoid the features drops or jank (of whatever the trail might have) to make the most "uninvolving" experience around. When you cater to the lowest common denominator don't underestimate how low that can go. From my many decades of riding experience, it seems to reach a new low every year, and I see it.

This could not be more wrong. Fact is that in most cases, unsanctioned rogue trails are the gnarly one that only higher-level riders can tackle. You have to put in perspective - this is about more than just the shore. Inclusivity and the cultural base of the sport goes far beyond the muni, and extends through all areas where we ride. The elitism of wanting your own personal trail that goes along with building rogue is EXACTLY what threatens trail access for ALL of us.

Including more types of people in riding increases the political influence our clubs have on society and broadens the market base to keep our LBSs in business. Having adaptive athlete trails parallel to mountain bike trails only further legitimizes the sport as something everyone can do, and something that land-use managers can support at the private and government level.

Seems you got your right wing delusions mixed up with the reality of how trail access actually works in the real world.

If you don't like it up here, feel free to immigrate south with that crybaby Jordan Peterson, and send us a postcard to tell us how the trail access goes for you down there.

For what it's worth, I've been riding the NS since my early 20's, into my 50's now and I appreciate a little less jank. So a bit of diversity in the trail network is welcomed, it shouldn't all be Grannies/Bookwus/Ladies. Even OG Neds had ride around for the A frame and the drops, etc..