New posts

Sharon's posts

6082 posts found

Dec. 23, 2016, 7:22 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Seymour MTB 10000'

Nice Andy! What's the ski 10000 route?

Dec. 20, 2016, 9:37 a.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Mark Wood vs the NSMBA

Lee and I wish Mark all the best in his future endeavors and are pleased we are continuing to move forward in a positive fashion.

With your abilities that helped to make TAP, Shore Core and the Academy successful we hope you can transfer this to your future prospects.

Dec. 8, 2016, 11:44 a.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Why has Pink Starfish been decommissioned?

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.

Nov. 24, 2016, 4:51 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Why has Pink Starfish been decommissioned?

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.

Nov. 23, 2016, 3:03 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Why has Pink Starfish been decommissioned?

What was unsustainable with the trail? It was freaking great.

This is a Trump-ism. Do stuff then make up shit later to cover it up, then deny that later.

On we go, nothing to see here folks

Pink Starfish was slated for decommissioning in the 2007 Alpine Recreational Strategic Study plan. Its not even on the DNV Map in their latest Fromme Trail plan. Its not even on their map at the trailheads.

The DNV has been consistent. This should not be a surprise.

What's unfortunate is the NSMBA paying Pat to do all that work for nothing. Lets hope the new board is more fiscally responsible.

Nov. 16, 2016, 7:20 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Forum Moderation.

How do you find time, on vacation in a warm, sunny place, to still be so bitter?

The NSMBA does many good things, and is larger than a single person.

My suggestion is to let it go.

You'll feel better.

No bitterness here Chris, twas a travel day. I have no problem with the good work the NSMBA does.

What exactly are you going to do kind Sir?

Challenge me to a Duchess of Queensbury match?

Has all those years with the bike seat against your perineum resulted in your pecker pointing south even when looking at naked photos of Sharon Bader? Join the club. Get in line behind Lee, and his problems have nothing to do with the perineum, but he does what he has to do once a month for Queen and country, then goes back to other things.

Let us see what you are made of, you spineless wimp

Smedley Pennyworth Esq

This makes me think of the movie Old Yeller, and you know how that ends.

Hazen meets Lee, aka Kettle meets pot.

Don't worry ABuxton, Your woody should be just fine so long as he stays in his place. And take care of those multiple personalities! Maybe go back to your complaining about Metro Van.

Nov. 1, 2016, 7:16 a.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Sharon,

In a related topic, I am considering running for the NSMBA Board of Directors and inquire generally from all posters here who are NSMBA members what matters should the NSMBA be addressing given the new Societies Act.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

Oh come on people, don't be so harsh on 'Hazen Colbert' !!! I applaud his keenness to run as a director of the NSMBA and to help promote and grow Mountain Biking on the North Shore! All volunteerism should be appreciated.

Hey Haze, if you can persuade Monica to run as well that would be WONDERFUL! You two have such a unique way of looking at things and your fresh perspective would create such an AWESOME synergy with the current NSMBA Program Manager who is well known and regarded for his open-mindedness, receptiveness to ideas that are not his and his contemplative thoughtfullness!!

Also the directors meetings would become so much more interesting with the inclusion of your wit and clear cogent insight! I hope your commitment to transparency will mean that you will keep us all informed of what transpires.

Looking forward to the NSMBA AGM!

Oct. 31, 2016, 1:29 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

"I will be meeting with the NSMBA and its legal counsel in November to discuss, among other things….. ….a requirement that all mountain bike trail users require a permit with a nominal fee, and that irresponsible behaviour including irresponsible riding…on public land."

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!! Oh Hazel, you crazy dreamer you.

I don't get it. Why meet with the NSMBA about issuing permits or signage. Isn't that a landmanager responsibility? Shouldn't he be meeting with DNV, Metro Van and now CMHC/ProvBC about this?

Oct. 28, 2016, 11:08 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
Interesting editorial in NS News re. CMHC lands

CMHC Lands consist of Blair Range, Mountain forest and Cove Forest. Blair Range is zoned for development. Mountain Forest and Cove Forest are zoned Recreation, Parks and Open spaces thanks to GUARD.

GUARD - group united around responsible development.
https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/sites/all/files/publications/1995%20%2009%20The%20Choice%20is%20yours.pdf

GUARD was established in 1995 to stop development of Mountain Forest and Cove Forest. These were zoned Urban Reserve at this time. Ie could be developed.
The fight was to make this area zoned Park Recreation and Open Space.

These efforts resulted in an inclusion in the 2003 Seymour OCP to keep these lands undeveloped.
https://www.dnv.org/sites/default/files/edocs/seymour-plan-with-maps.pdf

The trails are in Mountain Forest. There have been talks about making Blair Range Heritage. Hope they fix it up if they do, right now its shitty alder and roads that might as well be creeks.

Oct. 27, 2016, 9:22 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Pure gold! Still splitting my sides over the idea.

It must be ALLCAPS. How about TWO WHEELED LOCUSTS.

THRILLCRAFT

Oct. 27, 2016, 6:52 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Monica has been great for the Mtb community.

She helps us to focus our efforts as a galvanizing force.

We could never have gotten a trail through mountain view park let alone her road.

And NOW she could be the catalyst that legitimizes mountain biking in the CMHC!

Thanks Monica!

Oct. 26, 2016, 8:07 a.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Mathew has an update (#7) from MP Terry Beach here;

https://www.facebook.com/mrmathewbond/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE[HTML_REMOVED]fref=nf

To summarize the key new information
1. Province of BC and CMHC coordinated to put these signs up

2. What precipitated this is apparently "recreational users of the Blair Rifle Range property raised safety concerns with the property’s management related to trail building activity that included large trail structures and the unauthorized use of heavy machinery at the site."

3. Cited concern of "liability" in place of previous equivocal concern of "safety"

Oct. 23, 2016, 2:44 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Sharon

Can you please confirm the exact location of the work your team did on this trail.

I am really impressed with the outcome and after only 4 hours.

I can think of a lot of places where similar work would be required.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLoNrQgAW50/

Uncle Scrooge

The North Shore.

Its great that you know of places that require similar work. The NSMBA would be the group to talk to! PM Heckler and he can set you up!

Oct. 23, 2016, 12:56 p.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

But with these signs, you would be Trespassing in doing so.

Just like when you ride Cypress or above the 6th SB on Fromme.

Oct. 21, 2016, 8:39 a.m.
Posts: 6,328
Joined: Nov. 19, 2002
No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

I'll compile the info here;
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?p=2930010#post2930010

Lots of media activity today, I tried hard to make it clear to the media that this wasn't just a MTB issue, but an issue for all users. It's also a big issue for recreation and the local economy in North Van. Here's a couple that I though best covered the full spectrum of the issue from a trail users perspective:

North Shore News

CTV News

The found the radio interviews are best. More time to explore the issue, less opportunity to cut important facts, but maybe I'm biased cause I'm in them. . .

CKNW, Roundhouse Radio

I have been sharing all info on my Facebook page as it comes to me. My latest update is a request for information:

Why are these trails important to you, your club/organization or your business?

What would be the effect on you if access is prohibited?

I plan to compile this info into a compelling set of information to share with my colleagues in Provincial and Federal government to advocate on behalf of trail access. If you feel comfortable, please share and spread the word. Meetings are being scheduled with CMHC for next week and I'd like to have something for Monday.

If you'd rather comment on these boards, would someone volunteer to compile the info?

Thanks to everyone who has contacted me to offer support and ideas so far.

Mathew

6082 posts found

Forum jump: