Why has Pink Starfish been decommissioned?

A non native english speaking friend of mine needed this trail name explained to them. Moments like that will be lost forever :(

It looked like it was "being rebuilt" with todays riding preferences in mind.

I'm guessing it may have been one of the more popular trails on the mountain after the rebuild.

R.I.P.

I agree.

It looked like it was "being rebuilt" with todays riding preferences in mind.

I'm guessing it may have been one of the more popular trails on the mountain after the rebuild.

R.I.P.

Well, on the bright side, we've been spared another 'dumbing down the shore' thread…

So my question is why is everyone just rolling over on this? It seems to me if NSMBA, NSMB, and a certain other website starting with a P started advocating for a letter and email campaign or a petition that we could potentially bring a lot of pressure to bare on the DNV (and other land managers) to sanction this and other trails.

As a relative outsider who is new to the NS mountain biking scene it seems as if the mountain bike community here is not playing to its strengths. It seems to me that the people making mountain bike related trail decisions at DNV and Metro are unaware of a) how popular and main stream mountain biking has become b) the international reputation the NS has / had as a Mountain Biking Mecca. There is still potential to attract a lot more mountain bike tourist and business dollars to the North Shore that are increasingly going elsewhere in the PNW due to other communities doing more to develop, promote and maintain their trail networks.

http://www.nsmba.ca/content/2016-11_pink-starfish-update

"If you have any questions, please email the DNV at [email protected] , please CC the NSMBA at [email protected]"

The squeaky wheel gets the grease but DNV staff doesn't read NSMB.

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

But they know about it. And when the fact PS was closed the clear mandate to me is this: all high risk trails are on the radar and if so, remove them at the best expedience to avoid litigious complications. I am surprised that Lower Skull is still available, but is it a part of TAP? There is no placard at the trail head so I assume not. Moreover, why was Big Stupid and Semi-Retarded removed from Ladies from the ideal route? DNV most likely knew that removing Ladies would be a bad PR move but not removing the most extreme features. I have not asked Digs about this but I suspect the real reason for the removal for the aforementioned features years ago from the ideal route was to placate DNV litigious mindset.

I don't understand why, if this is the reason so many harder trails are killed or dumbed down, why a simple "exclusion of liability statement" could not be presented on a trail placard to warn any public about the harder nature of the trail. Easier to shut it I guess.

But that would mean NSMBA actually cares about said tougher trails. To my observation, the reverse is true.

But they know about it. And when the fact PS was closed the clear mandate to me is this: all high risk trails are on the radar and if so, remove them at the best expedience to avoid litigious complications. I am surprised that Lower Skull is still available, but is it a part of TAP? There is no placard at the trail head so I assume not. Moreover, why was Big Stupid and Semi-Retarded removed from Ladies from the ideal route? DNV most likely knew that removing Ladies would be a bad PR move but not removing the most extreme features. I have not asked Digs about this but I suspect the real reason for the removal for the aforementioned features years ago from the ideal route was to placate DNV litigious mindset.

I don't understand why, if this is the reason so many harder trails are killed or dumbed down, why a simple "exclusion of liability statement" could not be presented on a trail placard to warn any public about the harder nature of the trail. Easier to shut it I guess.

But that would mean NSMBA actually cares about said tougher trails. To my observation, the reverse is true.

Pretty sure that all of Skull is 'TAPped'. Actually 5 seconds with the google tells me that Steed have been working on it. I'd say that Upper Oil Can has higher consequence moves than PS has (had….I remember some pinner moves in 2007 when I first rode it but nothing that you couldn't ride around if desired.). I rode PS a few weeks ago and due to being old and shit, I passed by a few things and to my shame walked down the rock section after the memorial that I used to ride….but I can't remember anything that I'd call high risk. I've ridden the 'Retarded' lines on LO and would argue that the weird elevated wooden corner with the drop before that section is sketchier and that is a recent(ish) addition IIRC.

Not much if any work on lower skull over last few years other than some stuff on lower section and clearing of Kraals debris……

Monica didn't like it because it's name reminded her of her puckered face.

It looked like it was "being rebuilt" with todays riding preferences in mind.

I'm guessing it may have been one of the more popular trails on the mountain after the rebuild.

R.I.P.

Yep, couldn't agree more
What'd been done so far was great
Sad to see all that new work for not

First of all I would like to congratulate the new Directors on the NSMBA board. I hope that this will issue in a new era of transparency.

Specifically we asked to see the permit for Pink Starfish. That request was denied.

We could have just been directed to the minutes that were posted on the NSMBA website instead of just being given the run around.

I post this for clarity.

Based on the April 2016 NSMBA Minutes that can be found here:
http://nsmba.ca/content/2016-03_2016-meeting-minutes.

Here is the statement regarding Pink Starfish by the NSMBA.

Specifically:
"Pink Starfish has a permit for remediation work only, we can not proceed to a full rebuild with our
current permit. The remediation work is being done discretely, this is necessary to move the project
to phase II. This is at the request of the Land Manager."

So, it seems that remediation work was allowed, but not the building of new structures.

So who justified the building of new structures on this trail? Its pretty clear the DNV didn't want new structures to be built as stated.

I don't get why people keep bringing up these mountain bike haters in the forums, you all know they troll these sites and it's just fueling them even more..

I rode past Pink starfish the other day and saw that the entrance was blocked and had a bunch of logs strewn all over the trail, so sad.. I was really looking forward to riding that trail again. We need more trails like that for progression sake, I've gotten to a level know where I crave riding stuff that scares me.

Based on the April 2016 NSMBA Minutes that can be found here:
http://nsmba.ca/content/2016-03_2016-meeting-minutes.

Here is the statement regarding Pink Starfish by the NSMBA.

Specifically:
"Pink Starfish has a permit for remediation work only, we can not proceed to a full rebuild with our
current permit. The remediation work is being done discretely, this is necessary to move the project
to phase II. This is at the request of the Land Manager."

So, it seems that remediation work was allowed, but not the building of new structures.

So who justified the building of new structures on this trail? Its pretty clear the DNV didn't want new structures to be built as stated.

Well said. Unfortunately questions like this get ignored by the NSMBA.