New posts

Sanctioned or Unsanctioned, that is the question

June 8, 2012, 11:23 p.m.
Posts: 15598
Joined: May 29, 2004

Tried drinking, still can't find the stupidity.

Ive had 2 drinks….all I see is condescension and self entitlement….need more beer.

June 9, 2012, 12:55 a.m.
Posts: 209
Joined: May 29, 2003

Here's my take on the sanctioned/unsanctioned question:

Sanctioned trails are officially accepted and promoted by the land manager / land owner.
Unsanctioned trails have not been officially accepted by the land manager / land owner.
I'd add "illegal" trails here too, which are trails that have been constructed when the land manager / land owner has made it clear that there is to be no new trail construction, or their is a formal process in place (ie: permits) and that process has not been followed.

Assuming you agree with the above:

On Seymour, there are three primary landowners, BC Parks, the Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve, and the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. You can view the ownership boundaries at the District of North Vancouver's GIS Website.

BC Parks has only two sanctioned mountain biking trails, Old Buck below Mt. Seymour Parkway and Baden Powell west of Indian River Road. All other trails would be considered illegal, as stated on their website.

The Lower Seymour Conservation Reserve has numerous sanctioned mountain bike trails. Mountain biking is promoted on their website, so all other trails not on the map would be considered unsanctioned.

Trails on Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation land would be considered unsanctioned. There are one or two "no trespassing" signs at the lower entrance to the Blair Range, but the CMHC does not make any effort to prevent the public from entering or recreating on their land.

On Fromme, the DNV is the major landowner (as well as Grouse Mountain resorts). Check their map for "approved" or sanctioned trails. Other existing trails on Fromme would be considered unsanctioned, while new trails would be considered illegal (unless a trail building permit was obtained).

On Cypress, the primary landowners are British Pacific Properties and the District of West Vancouver. The majority of trails on Cypress would be considered unsanctioned, with the exception of the Trans Canada Trail.

Hope that provides a clearer picture.

June 9, 2012, 12:59 a.m.
Posts: 209
Joined: May 29, 2003

My take on the re-route question:

A re-route is a new section of trail built to replace an existing section of trail.

Until the existing section of trail is closed, and replaced with the reroute, the reroute is not open.

June 9, 2012, 12:05 p.m.
Posts: 1227
Joined: Dec. 3, 2003

On Cypress, the primary landowners are British Pacific Properties and the District of West Vancouver. The majority of trails on Cypress would be considered unsanctioned, with the exception of the Trans Canada Trail.

The first section of Pre-Reaper, also know as the Conservancy Crossing, is in the minority on Cypress.

We're working on getting sanctioned recreational trails on Cypress as part of the Upper Lands Study Working Group, but this will take years. In the meantime, substandard structures and building practices continue to be an unwelcome irritant.

Crappy work makes all builders look bad. Is it really that hard not to spike structures into live trees?

June 12, 2012, 12:29 p.m.
Posts: 396
Joined: May 27, 2003

Thank you MrBond for the best explanations yet on the topic. This confirms quite clearly there isn't a simple answer. This is both good and bad. Bad because there isn't one answer, but good as it leaves room for trail development (such as Shorn and Salamanda). For now I'll continue to use my grey matter to guide me through the grey areas.

…and thanks to the others who defended my "stupid questions"

Sustainable will be around forever.

June 13, 2012, 9:20 p.m.
Posts: 1222
Joined: May 4, 2006

For Fromme, I guess you could use this map to classify 'sanctioned'

June 13, 2012, 9:35 p.m.
Posts: 7566
Joined: March 7, 2004

Maybe, maybe not. "Sanctioned" has more to do with the legality of a trail. Just because a trail is on a map does not mean it is sanctioned. This doesn't have anything to do with "the shore", but I'll give you an example:

In the District of Mission, virtually all of the mountain bike trails on Red and Bear Mountain are unsanctioned. That is, the District of Mission does not officially approve of those trails, and refers to them as "unauthorized" If they did, they would have to have a budget to monitor those trails for hazards, etc. However, FVMBA has permission to maintain those existing trails, and the District of Mission website links to the FVMBA map of the trails.

The trails on Sumas Mountain in Abbotsford, are sanctioned. They are in the provincial government's database, and FVMBA has a written agreement with the government to maintain them.

June 13, 2012, 9:39 p.m.
Posts: 1222
Joined: May 4, 2006

I see your point, but that map is produced by the land owner (DNV) and is hosted on their website. I'm not sure how much more 'sanctioned' they can be but I ain't a lawyer…

June 16, 2012, 11:34 p.m.
Posts: 2064
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002

If the trail is there, ride it. That's the bottom line.

Forum jump: