Why has Pink Starfish been decommissioned?

https://www.dnv.org/notices/pink-starfish-trail-fromme-mountain-has-been-permanently-closed

I am disturbed by the lack of transparency in the decision process. And no, I do not consider a 9-year old report sufficient basis for the decision. So much has changed since then, especially with trail building knowledge.

A little bit disappointed that there was no Q[HTML_REMOVED]A last night. This topic was one of my questions.

I am disturbed by the lack of transparency in the decision process. And no, I do not consider a 9-year old report sufficient basis for the decision. So much has changed since then, especially with trail building knowledge.

That's true when it comes to trails on the ground. I'm thinking that the land manager wasn't very happy with all the gathering of material that was used for the construction of the bridges.

I am disturbed by the lack of transparency in the decision process. And no, I do not consider a 9-year old report sufficient basis for the decision. So much has changed since then, especially with trail building knowledge.

Wow, didn't even look at the date on the report. 2007??? That would explain the grossly inaccurate "high level of use" label for Pink Starfish lol.

If you are going to close down a trail, especially one that has had so much recent quality work done, at least have the guts to call it what it is and stop hiding behind some kind of environmental sustainability BS.

The report that was noted shows PS as low on the "Harmony" scale and in very poor condition, yet a high level of use, and an expert level. It was closed after a number of areas had been rebuilt and brought the trail condition to a much better level.

Compared to JR, which was identified as an extreme trail, in fair condition and low level of use but somehow scoring a moderate harmony and no immediate decision to close or really do anything with.

What do they make their decisions on? Do they simply attach a decision to a number rolled on a pair dice. Let's see, okay double ones, snake eyes, lets close this trail, reason … wait for the wheel to stop spinning, Alex it is to be closed due to environmental concerns. Yup, there we have it. Feasibility Study complete. Next.

No wonder why people are pissed and don't trust any decision making as there appears to be no real reasons provided based on any sound rational.

This news comes as no surprise to me. I knew when PS was part of no TAP plan, trail days or anything it was doomed. It is clear the new manta is "trails for all, trails with no risk" is actually the new mantra. PS offers too much risk, liability and possible litigation to allow. Sadly, and I recall, there is a memorial plaque to a rider just before the lower section rock face roll that is, in my opinion, one of the best. You could still do it, but have to hike up a skidder to do it, but the fact the line and trail is officially out upsets me. It clearly shows that the direction NSMBA has to take is to a more soft, safe trail mantra to placate the landowners (DNV) and in reality, NSMBA has little choice. But how hard did they try to keep it open, to show that the more "advanced" riding has a place so long as that the trail head clearly states it is an advanced trail. I don't recall any notice about the bottom half of old Executioner being cut out for the reroute of the last part of Bitches Brew. Just done. My real question, I guess, is where was the NSMBA (as the advocacy group for BIKERS) in any of this? Losing a trail of substantive meat is one thing, but if it was done "lying down" then what is the point of a biking group? For public face?

PS will not be the last. I have heard through the mist that Bookwus was discussed some years ago, and it would not surprise me, given the litigious nature of riding nowadays, that it goes a quiet death. Liability and all. Again, my question will be: how hard did anyone try to save it? Because once it is gone, it is gone for good.

To your point Bookwus does not appear on that DNV Fromme map someone else linked.

I am disturbed by the lack of transparency in the decision process. And no, I do not consider a 9-year old report sufficient basis for the decision. So much has changed since then, especially with trail building knowledge.

IMO, the 2007 ARRS where ps was slated for decommissioning was due to its proximity to the riparian area, they considered that side of the mountain to be more environmentally sensitive, they had to sacrifice a trail and at that time ps was the least used.

I know the NSMBA in 2007 and beyond made efforts to address these concerns.

It seems little progress was made.

I think this action by the Dnv is a result of errors in judgment of certain people within the NSMBA, I hope with the current new board structure things will change.

Appears to have been out of the NSMBA's hands

http://nsmb.com/pink-starfish-permanently-closed/

I just dont get it. Users have quadrupled in 15 years but dnv hasnt really allowed the trail network to expand. And no one ever explains why not in clear terms.

" Some have suggested that Graham had sick days accrued and once his days remaining to pension eligibility equaled his accrued days, he simply stopped coming to work."

Only when you work for a public entity can you accrue sick days….just saying LMAO

I can't believe people care about that walking speed, janky old crap.

I can't believe people care about that walking speed, janky old crap.

I can't believe that people continue to insult each other's trail preference.

And i can't believe that people still keep swinging at the same old horse.

The pressure is against all types of trails. If we don't protect any and all types, we will lose blocks of them at a time.

Trails for all, all for all trails!

I can't believe that people continue to insult each other's trail preference.

And i can't believe that people still keep swinging at the same old horse.

he complains because he can't handle anything more difficult than a sidewalk so i wouldn't worry about it too much.