[crapacity]

It seems that, in this area, the majority of the actual DH trails are secret (illegal) I was wondering if any of you trail builders have actually gotten caught or confronted by rangers or other authority figures.

I have started building a nice trail myself, but I recall reading in Mountain Bike a few months ago of some guys in North Carolina that got busted at gunpoint and were looking at jail time for a DH trail. A ticket I can handle, but I will not risk bigger problems just for a trail.

Any first hand stories or good info? Thanks.

 

[HarryCallahan]

If I were you, I wouldn't talk about it, and you might consider deleting your thread. At least your public profile doesn't say where you are.

You might consider that the bust for trail building is probably steeper than the one for just riding. And consequences will depend on whether you are on local, state, or federal land.

I don't personally know anyone who has gotten tagged for illegal building. But besides the case you mention, there was an incident in Marin a few years ago where the feds busted a coupe guys for illegal trail building in the Golden Gate Recreation area. One of the guys was a bike club president. Ooops! Because they were building in a federal area, and because they had stashed tools and worked on the trail for more than one day, the guys were hauled into federal court, and charged with conspiracy as well as the illegal trail building, and charges were tacked on for each tree they had cut. Even if they got the charges reduced, they no doubt had some steep legal bills.

 

[Dartman]

It would probably be cheaper to move to where you could build trails legally.

Google "Hick Hucksters" as the fr group in NC that were busted for building illegal trails.

Mike

 

[kidwoo]

Jackass is getting torn down.

 

[amydalayna]

Jackass is getting torn down.

really? why?

 

[Tattooo]

The Hick Hucksters got popped for too much NS style stuff that was built piss pour.

Don't say nothing to nobody.

 

[kidwoo]

really? why?

USFS chick on motorcycle said "too many manmade thingies.....too dangerous"

Stupid. That stuff is built very well.

 

[amydalayna]

how odd. that trail wasn't very scary either. even by my standards. that's really too bad.

i was trying to think of what sort of environmental impact they would come up for closing it, but couldn't think of any.
dangerous is just a silly reason.

 

[kidwoo]

And the USFS is a silly agency.

 

[biggins]

The Hick Hucksters got popped for too much NS style stuff that was built piss pour.

Don't say nothing to nobody.

so i am assuming you actually got to ride the Vietnam Trail so you know first hand the quality of construction?
they didnt get busted for building low quality stuff, that had nothing to do with it. they got busted because they were building on forest service land.

 

[HarryCallahan]

USFS chick on motorcycle said "too many manmade thingies.....too dangerous"

Stupid. That stuff is built very well.

She was just giving you the Cliff notes version.
Even if the stuff is or was well built, if someone doesn't know what they are doing, it could be dangerous to them. ( I know, its a risky sport and there are lots of natural features you can kill yourself on. )

It's not easy to sue the federal gov't, but I'm guessing that if they allow unpermitted stunts to remain and someone does get hurt, that might make a good lawsuit.

 

[kidwoo]

I love it when even the mountain bikers themselves begin to argue for this liability sh1t. Jesus christ. We'll allow motorcycles to mach along at 40mph through the woods and this never comes up. Falling off a little log and getting splinter in your hand is not exactly lawsuit fuel. If that's the real concern no one should be allowed on usfs or blm land ever.......for anything.

Everything there has a go around option. And like I said the stuff is bomber construction wise. If you get hurt, you did it to yourself, and the consequences are no greater than any of the legal trails you might want to ride your bike on.

If someone doesn't know what they're doing, they wouldn't be on this trail in the first place. Even decent directions won't get you there.

 

[amydalayna]

If someone doesn't know what they're doing, they wouldn't be on this trail in the first place. Even decent directions won't get you there.

that's what confuses me. the mission of the forest service is "to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run".

the land that jackass is on doesn't appear to be used by hikers and the like. just by some individuals having a good time on their bike.
by pushing these people away, how is that providing the greatest amount of good?

 

[Biscuit]

I rode jackass for the first time a couple of weeks ago and was amazed at the quality and sanity that went into building it.

Pretty much every time I see stunts I clench my jaw and wonder who the moron was who thought that would be a good idea. But jackass was/is a really nice, practical trail.

(.. not to mention no N* this year)

 

[Tattooo]

Its too bad this is how its going to be in that region for a long time to come. Trail building relegated to the control of lawyers and those afraid of them.

Its also too bad that there is no private land up there with the vision and balls to allow someone to build on it. There are a few places scattered around the country that are cool with it, but they are few and thousands of miles in between.

 

[OGRipper]

That is a real bummer about jackass. Got to ride it once last fall, super fun stuff, mostly low consequence and well built. Anyone that will wreck themselves on that stuff will do it on a regular trail.

But yeah the penalities for building are much greater than riding. It's like the difference between being a drug dealer and a personal user.

 

[Biscuit]

But yeah the penalities for building are much greater than riding. It's like the difference between being a drug dealer and a personal user.

Good point.

 

[Tattooo]

Too bad you can't have an "amount for personal use" when it comes to DH trails.

Got to thinking about this more though, if you kept it to just a trail, not truly nutty man made stuff, I don't see how it would be a problem. Look at the N Trail, or any of that in the area. I think you'd be alright.

Or maybe ask for permission? In this case it might be better to ask now then beg a judge later for forgiveness.

By the way Crap, if I come back for Nationals, any interest in some shuttle runs on Sky Tavern and the N?

 

[HarryCallahan]

I love it when even the mountain bikers themselves begin to argue for this liability sh1t. Jesus christ. We'll allow motorcycles to mach along at 40mph through the woods and this never comes up. Falling off a little log and getting splinter in your hand is not exactly lawsuit fuel. If that's the real concern no one should be allowed on usfs or blm land ever.......for anything.

Everything there has a go around option. And like I said the stuff is bomber construction wise. If you get hurt, you did it to yourself, and the consequences are no greater than any of the legal trails you might want to ride your bike on.

If someone doesn't know what they're doing, they wouldn't be on this trail in the first place. Even decent directions won't get you there.

Kidwoo, I totally agree with you. I wasn't saying it is right, just telling you how I think it plays out from the perspective of the Forest Service. Their perspective isn't irrational; it's just not ours. They are frankly stuck in a thankless, unenviable position.

Everything you and the others in this thread say about the quality of the construction and the ride around options sounds pretty text-book, except that it wasn't permitted. And that lack of permit invalidates all the quality and all the care that went in to it. There's a demand for this type of trail, the knowledge is there to build them in an environmentally responsible manner, but the permitting process is interminable. That's BS, but it is the legal reality that mtn bikers and the bike industry have to tackle to get more trails.

 

[kidwoo]

Their perspective isn't irrational;.
.

I totally disagree.

People hang from their fingertips 60 feet off the ground without protection on a regular basis on USFS land but they don't rope off rocks for the fear of liability. Plus the usfs even maintains a moto park up here with some pretty sizable as well as some pretty sketchy jumps. And even that place was built illegally then taken over since a need for it was established. Like I alluded to before......riding motorcycles will fvck you up way more than falling off a little ladder bridge. It's a red herring when it comes to mountain bikes. I'd love to see how many times (or even IF) the usfs has been sued by a mountain biker.

Erosion, wildlife habitat, botanical groves are all very legitimate gripes, but liability isn't. Especially not at this place. It just drives me nuts when mountain bikers start substantiating that mindset. I refuse to even try to relate to it because it's bullsh1t.

You are right about the permitting though. You can't just have a free for all on public land. But until a policy is in place that allows permitting of something like this trail......a mountain bike trail building free for all is exactly what I advocate. I'm gettin old, I want stuff to ride while I still can

 

[OGRipper]

I'm gettin old, I want stuff to ride while I still can

Hells yeah. Speaking of which, check your PMs in a minute or two.

 

[HarryCallahan]

I totally disagree.

People hang from their fingertips 60 feet off the ground without protection on a regular basis on USFS land but they don't rope off rocks for the fear of liability. Plus the usfs even maintains a moto park up here with some pretty sizable as well as some pretty sketchy jumps. And even that place was built illegally then taken over since a need for it was established. Like I alluded to before......riding motorcycles will fvck you up way more than falling off a little ladder bridge. It's a red herring when it comes to mountain bikes. I'd love to see how many times (or even IF) the usfs has been sued by a mountain biker.
...

The difference between rock climbing and ladder bridges or other stunts is the difference between natural existing conditions and man made ones. It doesn't matter that the risk you take on natural conditions is more likely to kill you. For private property owners that let people ride on their land, that's the difference in whether they can get sued or not, especially once they know conditions are other than natural.

Now suing the gov't is a whole other deal, and you may be right that the Forest Service is in a pretty bulletproof position, and the liability issue is just a convenient excuse. Maybe the district ranger doesn't like bikes, or he feels that he needs to act because knowledge of the trail is too public, or he got complaints from someone who doesn't like bikes. Lotta possibilities

The moto park you mention is interesting. That seems like a really good parallel. If it started out as illegal, then got official blessing somehow, that seems like something worth knowing more about Maybe it could be done again.