mudhoney profile

Nice pic…got to get down there to ride in the summer!
Penny

Posted by: LoamtoHome

thanks for chiming in.... different situations to a certain point as they have the same land manager and management plan but I'm happy the unsanctioned stuff is kept off TF for Seymour and NSMBA is not looking after it.

agreed

one key difference is the answer to "what's the risk of the trail being shut down (or made no bikes/hiking only) if it's listed publicly?"

Posted by: LoamtoHome

Posted by: heckler

Cool. You're informed. I was only getting nyself informed. Thanks for the links.

Trailforks shows all trails as unsanctioned and without a trail association on Burke BC Parks. Its an uphill battle for a few dedicated volunteers to change that They can all use our support via paid memberships

https://torca.ca/trails/trail-building/

https://www.trailforks.com/region/burke-mountain/?activitytype=1&z=12.0&lat=49.32558&lon=-122.75096 shows TORCA as local trail association. Also says "BC Parks is currently drafting a Management Plan for the Park. TORCA is advocating for mountain bike trails to be included in the plan."

So if these trails are unsanctioned, why are they showing up in TF? TF not showing the unsanctioned ones in Seymour (which they shouldn't).  I'm very confused and feel there is a double standard.

"Unsanctioned" or "Unauthorized" generally means that there's no official recognition of the trails by the relevant land manager / land owner. Sometimes these are "secret" trails (and in the case of some Seymour trails, ones you can get fined for riding), but in many cases there are trails that have existed for many years and the land manager / trail association don't have an agreement for them, the trails have been appearing on maps for years and are well known to the public. Often (e.g. the case with Burke, thanks to the awesome advocacy work of TORCA) there is ongoing work to get the trails officially recognized. Makes sense to have them on TF but with note that they are not authorized. Not really a double standard, but different situations. Trail orgs have admin access to hide/delete trails if they are sensitive, so often what appears on TF is what the trail org has deemed to be ok.

Posted by: bingobus

This is great news! I was surprised we even got Deer John, a rock roll and a small drop! My goodness!

Deer John is a different land manager (Recreation Sites & Trails BC), so some things are a bit easier in that zone of Seymour.

https://www.trailforks.com/report/1532764/

A couple years back when Rocky was introducing their EWS team, they filmed on John Deer.

https://fb.watch/4mrSD6uFS1/

Posted by: D_C_

Posted by: mudhoney

Posted by: icullis

I also emailed Metro, and DNV's Metro representative (Councilor Muri). I have a response from Councilor Muri, but don't expect to hear anything back from Metro Vancouver... Councilor Muri mentioned that the DNV is trying to set up a steering committee and develop an overarching trail plan, which does sound interesting.

Muri was responsible for getting Metro to rip out a small optional skinny that was rebuilt on Bridle Path a couple of years ago, Metro tore it out on a Sunday & it had just been finished the week before (feature was rebuilt with Metro permission). We did eventually get to rebuild it again, but it wasted many volunteer hours

What was her concern with the feature that got removed?

I never heard, only that it's where she likes to walk her dogs.

The previous version of the skinny was fully rotten and falling apart; the new one was built to all of Metro's standards for a blue trail, very similar to the original, and it's optional (as it always was). I heard that it was being referred to as a "jump", which it's not and never was, but again, this was never verified. It felt very much like NIMBYism.

The skinny is also pretty popular with the local dogs, who often use it to practice their agility training  ;)

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bv41IIVl3FJ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Posted by: icullis

I also emailed Metro, and DNV's Metro representative (Councilor Muri). I have a response from Councilor Muri, but don't expect to hear anything back from Metro Vancouver... Councilor Muri mentioned that the DNV is trying to set up a steering committee and develop an overarching trail plan, which does sound interesting.

Muri was responsible for getting Metro to rip out a small optional skinny that was rebuilt on Bridle Path a couple of years ago, Metro tore it out on a Sunday & it had just been finished the week before (feature was rebuilt with Metro permission). We did eventually get to rebuild it again, but it wasted many volunteer hours

As the current permitted builder on Dale's, there's been no recent communication from Metro on any of those suggested changes to Dale's... my goal is to preserve the current technical challenge on lower Dale's, add back some wood stunts if Metro permits, and keep up with other regular maintenance (drain clearing, etc....).

But Metro has a habit of not telling us what's going on....

Severed was originally a hiking trail, and is presently designated multi-use. It's on land owned by CMHC and managed by Rec Sites & Trails BC. It should stay multi-use, it's not a DH race course. Ride it expecting to see foot traffic and be able to stop or slow down when you do.

John Deer has same land owner/manager as Severed. It's pretty popular with trail runners (usually solo or very small groups). As one of the builders/maintainers on it, I do not support making it bike only. I do support having signs at the bottom that say something to the effect of "Warning: High Speed Bike Traffic. Foot Traffic recommended to take alternate trail" I've made this recommendation to NSMBA several times. This type of messaging provides education, and experienced hikers/runners who know the trail can still enjoy it; while others less experienced or in larger groups may choose a different option, helping to keep the trails safe and fun for all.

I'm not a fan of taking away trail access from other groups. There's a difference between a pair of trail runners or a hiker that is paying attention to the trail and steps aside to let bike traffic go by versus a large group with dogs, children, etc. or someone on foot with earphones in that isn't paying attention. But regardless, we share the trails will all other user groups. Horses are permitted on Bridle Path. As Heckler & Sanchez have said, pay attention & ride with care. Anytime we are on our bikes, we are ambassadors for our sport. How other users perceive us also influences our future trail access.

Other land managers for the trails you mentioned...

- Corkscrew - Metro Vancouver

- Pingu / Boogieman / Boogie Nights - DNV

Boogie nights also gets riders hiking back up it to session... maybe less now than when if first opened, but my assumption would be that 2% noted on TF is most likely from this.

Edit to add...

Boogie Nights & JD are different land mangers. Boogie Nights is District of North Van, JD is owned by CMHC and managed by the province (Rec Sites & Trails).

DNV doesn't really have clear policies (remember they randomly put signs on Ladies to make it bikes only without consulting with anyone... Boogie Nights would be a better place for that signage)

RST does have options to limit user groups or limit user direction on trails. As one of the current builders on JD*, I've advocated for signage on JD for bikes to be restricted to downhill only since it was (re)opened. It needs signs at the bottom that say "Warning! High Speed Bike Traffic. Foot traffic recommended to take Old Buck or Academy Climb / Penny Lane / Good Sir Martin. Bikes downhill only." JD is popular with trail runners & I really really don't like limiting any user groups trail access, so I don't think it should be bikes only, but warning signs with an alternate route suggestion should make for a more pleasant trail experience for everyone.

(*many thanks to Bryce for the original build on JD and Martin for all of the fresh work).