Update: 2014 Seymour Work Plan - Trail Decommissions

I don't ride the shore much, but I did ride Dales and Forever After. I was surprised at how tough Dales was as the feeder route into Forever After, the new great blue seymour trail.

Keep in mind that Dale's was there first. It is not simply the "feeder route" to Forever After, and if a more appropriate feeder route is needed, it should be built.

Land managers have the right to do what they want on their land.

but it's not their land!

Keep in mind that Dale's was there first. It is not simply the "feeder route" to Forever After, and if a more appropriate feeder route is needed, it should be built.

^ THIS

When Dale's was the feeder to After Taste it made a whole world of sense in my mind. Regardless of what some people on here have had to say about the trail now being easy except for that one rock move I think you are wrong.

It's still a good black diamond trail, The top section is steep (no not crazy steep, but not blue square either) the middle section is rough and rocky and rooty, it then leads into a number of rock faces, each more committing than the one before it.

I have been very supportive of seeing accessible trails for newer riders on the shore, I am after all heavily involved with the Muddbunnies, and the majority of our club is made up of beginner and intermediate riders. In that respect I think it is great and important that we have gotten a little bit more balance around here (ie actual green / blue options for newer riders)

I think we should be taking a page out of MTB Cypress' book, we need to remember that there are also a lot of advanced riders here, and trails need to be preserved for these riders as well, I mean legitimate trails, not "there is still hard stuff out there if you know where to look".

My 2 cents for now

Keep in mind that Dale's was there first. It is not simply the "feeder route" to Forever After, and if a more appropriate feeder route is needed, it should be built.

friends I rode with said this was the only way to get there from the top. They did say there was another way to climb to it but wasn't maintained which seems too bad.

friends I rode with said this was the only way to get there from the top. They did say there was another way to climb to it but wasn't maintained which seems too bad.

There couldn't be a more easy way to get to it….Old buck, BP, power lines, new Severed entrance, BP, power lines, ride 50 feet, turn left on Forever After. It's a nice alternative loop to Severed. With the character of the trails above the power lines as they are, is there a need for a feeder into Forever After when it is so easily looped like every other trail off the BP? Are beginner/intermediates (on trail bikes) now shuttling from the parking lot?

…if a more appropriate feeder route is needed, it should be built.

Someone told me that this was already in progress and would be part of the BCBR course - anyone know if this is true?

MTB Cypress's provocative comment is this:

It is not about the maps, it is not about the structures, it is not about a tree root in a rock face.

What it is about, IMHO, is that the NSMBA and the TAP programme have gotten to be too successful!!! Pat yourselves on the back please!

You have a volunteer organization driving, advocating, and creating solutions for mountain biking use within the lands of the Metro region, in part largely funded by private companies. W O W !

What is there to manage as a land manager if you let everyone else do the work?

It seems to me the land manager may have had a panic attack and thought how do I reinforce my importance in my job? How can I get a bigger budget so my managerial importance rises within my role here at the office?

What happens, if, the NSMBA and all the TAP supporters suddenly say, "huh??? What about our history and establishing the trusting relationship? What about our integrity in discussing the hard discussions? What about how "WE" (the we including the land managers) have made a POSITIVE contribution in maximizing the use and enjoyment of these lands in a MANAGED COOPERATIVE STEWARDSHIP MANNER?"

This work plan, and the "reasons" (I prefer to call them excuses) are all power politics within Metro.

They have deliberately, IMO, soured the relationship, for some internal reason. And in doing so, they have set back the trust and respect, I believe, the NSMBA had for them. That WE had for them.

What would happen if the NSMBA said "Fine, we are going on vacation for the next 5 years. TAP sponsor's- keep your money, or maybe donate to a disc golf course along the to become derelict trails."

At the end of the day, we do not hear what is going on inside Metro. We do know people are people and they have their hang ups. People that know me know mine! I hate waiting for people who are late for riding their bikes!

This whole work plan smells of something far worse.

This work plan threatens the relationship that many had thought was working.

Metro's attitude seems to be "They need us more than we need them."

I dare say that is A$$ backwards- Metro needs us more than they think.

And we better let them know!

PS I have some grumpy Cypress builders looking for new turf- should I send them back to you?! ; )

So sorry, could not resist!

Couldnt have said it better,Gord (but didnt….to prevent they knotting of panties).

Their "plan" appears to have little focus and shows very little in the way of a "risk management" plan.

Keep an advanced "rogue" trail but attempt to decomm one rock on one of the oldest bike trails on the hill?

What nonsense.

…btw,that "GVRD trailbuilding guidelines" pdf that someone posted….hilarious.

I hope that was some intern's summer project.

They have deliberately, IMO, soured the relationship, for some internal reason. And in doing so, they have set back the trust and respect, I believe, the NSMBA had for them. That WE had for them.

…and now, instead of there being a healthy two-way communication between Metro and the biking community, in which Metro actually have a degree of control over what's going on, someone's just going to say "fuck it" and go build rogue on Metro land specifically.

Hate to be the black sheep here, but Metro Van can do what they want with that rock face as much as I care. Although that being the case, it seems hypocritical to close down the perfectly well built and sustainable alternative line that had sprung up in recent times…

I think Gord pretty much nailed it. I don't understand how they can't have both the rock face and the ride around. Define the entry into the face, build up the catch at the bottom. It really isn't that bad, and personally I don't thing the consequences are as high as say the high log ride on CBC. I'd rather toss the bike on Dales Rock face than fall how many feet on CBC???

have the nsmba done anything to challenage metros plans? how about embracing the power of social media and starting a petition? or would that be contentious?

Newton's Third Law of Social Media Group Dynamics is at play here:

For every Action, there is an equal, and Opposite Reaction.

Reviewing this thread and it is pretty clear our Opposite Reaction.

Together it shows the initial Action being insufficient in Logic, Trail Connectedness, and Historical Reasoning, and what ever else makes sense to say in that regard.

Land Manager's Right's aside NSMBA already has voiced their displeasure with as much professionalism as I am sure they can. At the end of the day, they, the NSMBA, us- the volunteers, and TAP sponsors, are heavily invested into what WE ALL have created.

Email Metro at the link at the top of the thread and remind them of the WE in the relationship, and the US and THEM attitude which is subliminal in the work plan is the poison from the past.

The tangent mention of "volunteer organizations" …

They cannot even mention NSMBA by name. Wow. Politics at play.

There is a whole back story that is not in view I feel.

Email to Metro Van sent.