cooperquinn profile

LOOK AT HOW HAPPY NIGEL IS ON THE CIRCUS CONTRAPTION!

Wholeheartedly agree.

ALSO I HOPE YOU ALL READ COUNCILLOR BOND'S CLOSING SENTENCE.

Because lets be honest, they probably needed a shower anyway, right?

The banner image really sums up why this matters to the community!

The NSMBA is stoked to have Kona onboard here; they've put in huge hours already and it shows! 

And huge ups for spreading the TAP/NSMBA stoke.

Correct!

I won a set of the OneUp composites at Beyond the Valleycliffe of the Dolls last year, and they've been awesome. 

Holy hell are the pins hard.

1) This looks awesome. So clean. 

2) Dear god, who let this picture go out with the press release? That poor stanchion. 

TAP signs yes. Trail signs not on CMHC land, no.

"Agreed. Now NSMBA has to step up to the plate and get something happening instead of this wait and see approach. At the very least big no ebikes acending on DH flow trails signage would be a great start. "

As a general rule, we (the NSMBA) don't control signage. We can (and do) advocate for signage or signage changes, consult on proposed signage, and provide other input for signage on DNV land, but we can't just go print signs and put 'em up.

If you sent a letter in, thank you. YOU did this. It sounds cheesy, but it was your letter that put them over the edge - because without all of them, nothing would have changed.

I'd echo what AlanB said - if you sent a complaint, send a quick thank you as a follow up. It goes a long way.

I asked for some clarification and specificity on a couple things. xy9ine has it: you can put your pitchforks down for the moment. I'm glad everyone keeps them in good shape though! Never know when we're gonna need 'em. 

· The District Parks Department plans on maintaining Grannies’ current status as a sanctioned, permitted, bike primary trail for the foreseeable future"

· To the best of my knowledge, there are no other departments actively engaged in works or plans in that area.

They put counters on trails somewhat regularly; so does Metro/LSCR.

Nobody panic. 

"Fortunately, the rumor you have heard about Grannies is only that - a rumor.

We can confirm that the District Parks Department has not engaged in any discussions regarding the future of this trail, and we do not currently have any plans regarding its future beyond maintaining its current status."

Important to note that the FLRORD/RST-BC ebike policy applies nowhere on the Shore.

I'm not sure what UROC 'banned'?

"The agreement reached with the private landowners around Cumberland in 2015 specifically grants access for non-motorized, recreational use of the trails and for motorized access when necessary for events or trail work."

They advocated for non-motorized recreation, and the landowner granted access for non-motorized recreation. 

Its up to clubs to decide what they advocate for and in most cases the land manager has final say on who can do what on their land. UROC didn't actually 'ban' anything. Agreements, and often funding, are often predicated on wording like "non-motorized", especially in the US.

The moment anyone starts even trying to charge people to be on the trails is the moment the entire NSMBA board quits over liability.

This is why the Trail Pass has been replaced; eliminating the possibility that it could possibly be construed as charging for access. 

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96337_01

And earleb, its swift. silent. deep. I'm mildly surprised no one up here has replicated the original Airforce hats with a helmet sticker, TBH.

earleb is correct, and I think its worth laying out a bit of how this works.

We do not set policy for any land manager, be it ebikes, horses, what criteria define a 'Blue Square' trail, or how many accessible parking spots there are. For most of Fromme, allowed uses and activities for parks (and trails) are set out in DNV Bylaw 8310, which is adopted by DNV Council. We don't put up trail signs, boundary signs, or use signs (with the exception of TAP signs). We don't get to decide who is allowed on what trails. We are fortunate to be allowed to build and maintain trails, per the standards and guidelines laid out by each individual land manager.

We advocate for mountain biking, mountain bike access, and mountain bike trails, with currently seven (?) different land managers; be that with staff or elected officials. This involves discussions with and about other user groups, be it hikers, runners, streamkeepers, or professional dogwalkers, and understanding that each land manager is unique in their needs, mandate, regulations, policies, and resources. None of those seven give us control over who can be on what trails; we can offer opinions, comments, and thoughts on behalf of our membership and users (advocating), but we can make no decisions on access.

Equestrians are absolutely allowed on many trails on the Shore. The biggest artery on Seymour is named after them.

TL:DR; "Perhaps NSMBA does not have the authority to determine which user groups can and cannot use the trails within their network?" Bingo.

*EDIT: Also, I totally wouldn't advocate for 12 months of sunshine. It wouldn't really be the Shore, I'm terrified of a massive interface fire, I like skiing, and I hate dusty trails. But advocating for sunshine would be as effective as advocating for mountain bike trails can be sometimes.