Welcoming any thoughts about the front page of The Province yesterday. Personally I thought it was an inappropriate place to air dirty laundry.
Last edited by: FLATCH on Sept. 11, 2019, 1:33 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Front page news?
It was on the CBC website a few weeks back so it was picked up in the news cycle and I'm not surprised it made it to the front page of the Province. The province has had a few front page pieces over the years including the "Watchmen" debacle. There are fair points on both sides of the issue wrt rogue building, but in the current climate I think that local clubs need to state that don't support rogue building if they want to continue to have the cooperation of the land managers. Technically there are ways to put in a new trail without getting section 57 approval on crown lands, but it definitely hampers trail building creativity and ironically trail sustainability.
*note, edited*
Last edited by: syncro on Sept. 11, 2019, 8:13 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Any links to province story? Can't find nuttin.
C’mon Lu, just like you, I’m O.G. now and actually read it in the paper. Give me a call if you want the lowdown.
Posted by: FLATCH
This was Tuesday’s province and about the woodlot in particular. Does sound like the same story.
Slow news day?
Whoops, yeah same issue but two different locations. I wonder how they picked up on the Woodlot situation?
Cooper was on CBC radio a week ago talking about the same issue in reference to the Chilliwack story.
That’s it
Posted by: syncro
It was on the CBC website a few weeks back so it was picked up in the news cycle and I'm not surprised it made it to the front page of the Province. The province has had a few front page pieces over the years including the "Watchmen" debacle. There are fair points on both sides of the issue wrt rogue building, but in the current climate I think that local clubs need to state that don't support rogue building if they want to continue to have the cooperation of the land managers. Technically there are ways to put in a new trail without getting section 57 approval on crown lands, but it definitely hampers trail building creativity and ironically trail sustainability.
*note, edited*
As you know, over here in my area the situation is totally different and any stunt or trail feature or even singletrack (without any stunts) is in danger of getting destroyed....there is zero tolerance to rogue trail building, although quite a few are tolerated.
Lots of local clubs are forming / have been formed in the last fw years trying to get a small bikepark-y trail with a few jumps/stunts or "flowtrails". But proper "rogue building" is seriously dangerous and risky.
So my question is out of curiosity. You state that rogue trail building is not only limiting trail building creativity (I guess along the lines of the issue of liability) but trail sustainability as well....why is that?
And yes, social media is interesting in this context, be it IG or Strava, which for me is social media as well.
Posted by: Mic
So my question is out of curiosity. You state that rogue trail building is not only limiting trail building creativity (I guess along the lines of the issue of liability) but trail sustainability as well....why is that?
And yes, social media is interesting in this context, be it IG or Strava, which for me is social media as well.
Well no, I'm not saying that rogue building itself limits creativity or sustainability, it could actually be the exact opposite. First though, it helps to understand the difference between rogue and legit. One can of course simply apply for formal approval, but the process is lengthy and can get expensive if archeological assessments are required. There is also no guarantee you'll get approval. Another way to be legit is that in BC (and I assume the rest of the country as well), on crown land people have the freedom to traverse the land as they please. So if you walk back and forth across a certain route every day, eventually you are going to wear a path or trail into the ground and that is considered ok. However, the moment you begin to put a shovel into the ground, use a chainsaw, build structures, etc and you don't have approval then that's considered rogue trail building. Of course getting approval doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want, but it allows you to use typical trail construction methods to create your very own work of art.
Where the limitation part comes in that I was talking about is by trying to establishing or "build" a trail without section 57 approval simply by riding the same route or path over and over. One could argue that by not using tools or typical trail construction methods of any sort one has to be more creative and more considerate of sustainability, but it makes it way harder to establish a good trail without the use of any tools.
Edit: here's a link to application guideline so you can see what's required and permitted without any approval.
http://www.frontcounterbc.ca/pdf/S57ApplicationInfoGuide.pdf
Last edited by: syncro on Sept. 13, 2019, 5:17 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: Mic
So my question is out of curiosity. You state that rogue trail building is not only limiting trail building creativity (I guess along the lines of the issue of liability) but trail sustainability as well....why is that?
And yes, social media is interesting in this context, be it IG or Strava, which for me is social media as well.
Well no, I'm not saying that rogue building itself limits creativity or sustainability, it could actually be the exact opposite. First though, it helps to understand the difference between rogue and legit. One can of course simply apply for formal approval, but the process is lengthy and can get expensive if archeological assessments are required. There is also no guarantee you'll get approval. Another way to be legit is that in BC (and I assume the rest of the country as well), on crown land people have the freedom to traverse the land as they please. So if you walk back and forth across a certain route every day, eventually you are going to wear a path or trail into the ground and that is considered ok. However, the moment you begin to put a shovel into the ground, use a chainsaw, build structures, etc and you don't have approval then that's considered rogue trail building. Of course getting approval doesn't mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want, but it allows you to use typical trail construction methods to create your very own work of art.
Where the limitation part comes in that I was talking about is by trying to establishing or "build" a trail without section 57 approval simply by riding the same route or path over and over. One could argue that by not using tools or typical trail construction methods of any sort one has to be more creative and more considerate of sustainability, but it makes it way harder to establish a good trail without the use of any tools.
Edit: here's a link to application guideline so you can see what's required and permitted without any approval.
http://www.frontcounterbc.ca/pdf/S57ApplicationInfoGuide.pdf
Re...first point: Actually I wanted to state the exact opposite of what I then wrote. Sorry for that.
And thank you for your clarification.
Amazing that you guys live in a country where the concept of Crown Land does exist. Over here even a small trail without any structures might be destroyed because the owner does not approve of it. It is all quite individual....some owners/land managers do not mind (until something happens) while others are pretty strict, which might even mean calling the local forest commissioners/BLM type of bureaucrats/police.
I did some clearing this summer with my son...we basicaly raked a trail, the trail was literally gone two days later, whereas on another hill there has been a built trail with drainage and all that for at least 4 years, without any destruction or decommissioning at all.
Articles like this also point out issues with the club.
Forum jump:
