Has anyone heard any updates on the Stevens Pass Bike Park recently? It seems like its been a while since anyone posted anything about it...
Stevens Bike Park??
- Thread starter MtbFreeride
- Start date
Future bike park trails?
In my opinion there is no valid reason why lift assist cannot work in Washington.
There is a sticky thread on eMpTy BeeR, that's been tracking progress, but with a project like this, updates are likely going to pop up farther apart than with other projects. Politics on the federal level=speed of sludge.
Reading the thread it looks like they're shooting for 2010.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=410821
There is a sticky thread on eMpTy BeeR, that's been tracking progress, but with a project like this, updates are likely going to pop up farther apart than with other projects. Politics on the federal level=speed of sludge.
Reading the thread it looks like they're shooting for 2010.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=410821
i agree. I wish snoqualmie was still like it was in 2000.
an article from today's seattle times on the stevens bike park: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008668099_stevenspass25m.html
Yeah, it's going to eat Whistler's babies for a late-night snack!!!
The hair on my back stands up when I think about Snoqualmie Pass. They had it running when the bikes that were at our disposal weren't really cut out for that kind of terrain. Seems like they would have been doing rather well over the last few/several years based on how many riders I've met in the area and knowing there's plenty more out there I've yet to meet. All of whom wouldn't hesitate to go there on a regular basis if they were up and running.
Washington state has some of the sickest trails in the world. All of which currently cannot be reached via chairlift. Me confused.
The hair on my back stands up when I think about Snoqualmie Pass. They had it running when the bikes that were at our disposal weren't really cut out for that kind of terrain. Seems like they would have been doing rather well over the last few/several years based on how many riders I've met in the area and knowing there's plenty more out there I've yet to meet. All of whom wouldn't hesitate to go there on a regular basis if they were up and running.
Washington state has some of the sickest trails in the world. All of which currently cannot be reached via chairlift. Me confused.
I must have snow-shoed past you at some point then...you must have meant after stevens opened now that I think of it... I was up there before it opening
Last edited:
a skipatrol guy on the lift told me no bike park 'till summer of 2010... but he told me that last month; when there was new snow to ride...
A little offtopic I know.. but after reading that article I decided to look into sierras club.
I found this on google.. is it true? I had no idea people were so against riding
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/wc14
"Gentlepersons:
You will soon be presented with the following resolution passed by the San Francisco Bay Chapter (SFBC) on Monday, May 14, 2001: "The San Francisco Bay Chapter urges the Board of Directors to initiate a review of the Park City Accord in order to determine whether it should be modified or rescinded." While it sounds equivocal, that was only due to the usual compromises undertaken to get it passed as easily as possible. Obviously, it was passed because the majority agrees that something in the Park City Agreement, and the policy on mountain biking that it gave rise to, has to change!
Here is the original resolution passed by the Wildlife Committee of the SFBC:
"Wildlife Committee Resolution
Whereas:
1. Mountain bikes greatly increase erosion, particularly, creating narrow ruts that make walking difficult, widening trails, removing top soil and vegetation, and making trail treads slippery and dangerous; this is due to their knobby tires, additional weight, and increased speed, momentum, acceleration, and skidding;
2. They make it much easier for people to get farther into wildlife habitat and travel farther in the same length of time, thus posing an increased threat to wildlife;
3. The speed at which they travel makes it more difficult to notice small animals and plants in the trail and avoid crushing them;
4. Bikes, especially on the narrow trails that mountain bikers prefer, and at the speeds that many mountain bikers travel, intimidate, displace, and endanger wildlife and people;
5. Mountain biking is bad role modelling, because children who see people on mountain bikes learn (non-verbally) that rough treatment of natural areas is okay;
6. The Park City Agreement with IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) was to gain support for Wilderness designation from mountain bikers; however, IMBA and mountain bikers have been opposing Wilderness designation because Wilderness by definition is off-limits to machinery such as bikes. They have instead been lobbying for "protected" areas to be administered under designations that allow mountain biking. They are also asking for new wilderness areas to be "gerrymandered" to exclude trails that they want to remain open to mountain biking. In addition, the process by which the Park City Agreement and mountain bike policy were created was undemocratic and thus violated Club policy: input from Club members opposing the changes was ignored, and some were even excluded from meetings where deliberations were conducted!
7. Its support of mountain biking is an embarrassment for the Club, since it is so obviously an anti-environmental activity, akin to the use of motorized ORVs.
8. The presence of mountain bikes negatively impacts one's experience of tranquil nature, because they remind us of the urban environment and its associated stresses -- exactly what we are trying to escape from!
Therefore be it resolved that:
The Sierra Club actively oppose the off-road use of bicycles, mountain boards, and all other off-road vehicles;"
I found this on google.. is it true? I had no idea people were so against riding
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/wc14
"Gentlepersons:
You will soon be presented with the following resolution passed by the San Francisco Bay Chapter (SFBC) on Monday, May 14, 2001: "The San Francisco Bay Chapter urges the Board of Directors to initiate a review of the Park City Accord in order to determine whether it should be modified or rescinded." While it sounds equivocal, that was only due to the usual compromises undertaken to get it passed as easily as possible. Obviously, it was passed because the majority agrees that something in the Park City Agreement, and the policy on mountain biking that it gave rise to, has to change!
Here is the original resolution passed by the Wildlife Committee of the SFBC:
"Wildlife Committee Resolution
Whereas:
1. Mountain bikes greatly increase erosion, particularly, creating narrow ruts that make walking difficult, widening trails, removing top soil and vegetation, and making trail treads slippery and dangerous; this is due to their knobby tires, additional weight, and increased speed, momentum, acceleration, and skidding;
2. They make it much easier for people to get farther into wildlife habitat and travel farther in the same length of time, thus posing an increased threat to wildlife;
3. The speed at which they travel makes it more difficult to notice small animals and plants in the trail and avoid crushing them;
4. Bikes, especially on the narrow trails that mountain bikers prefer, and at the speeds that many mountain bikers travel, intimidate, displace, and endanger wildlife and people;
5. Mountain biking is bad role modelling, because children who see people on mountain bikes learn (non-verbally) that rough treatment of natural areas is okay;
6. The Park City Agreement with IMBA (International Mountain Biking Association) was to gain support for Wilderness designation from mountain bikers; however, IMBA and mountain bikers have been opposing Wilderness designation because Wilderness by definition is off-limits to machinery such as bikes. They have instead been lobbying for "protected" areas to be administered under designations that allow mountain biking. They are also asking for new wilderness areas to be "gerrymandered" to exclude trails that they want to remain open to mountain biking. In addition, the process by which the Park City Agreement and mountain bike policy were created was undemocratic and thus violated Club policy: input from Club members opposing the changes was ignored, and some were even excluded from meetings where deliberations were conducted!
7. Its support of mountain biking is an embarrassment for the Club, since it is so obviously an anti-environmental activity, akin to the use of motorized ORVs.
8. The presence of mountain bikes negatively impacts one's experience of tranquil nature, because they remind us of the urban environment and its associated stresses -- exactly what we are trying to escape from!
Therefore be it resolved that:
The Sierra Club actively oppose the off-road use of bicycles, mountain boards, and all other off-road vehicles;"
He emailed me telling me my Native American ancestors would be ashamed at me for building that trail at Colonnade.
But yah the guy is a nut, unfortunately nutjob or not, there are alot of people that are against bikes being on trails. If that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be like 500 hundred miles of dirt trails around the Seattle area that are banned to mt. bikes.
It's people like that guy that make me glad I'm not him.
Q13 Fox Had a story this morning about the proposed 5 miles of DH trails. They made it sound as though it's a done deal. I pray this happens, but I won't hold my breath. Plenty of mountain bike haters in the area.
I take it the Sierra club would like to keep handicapped people from ever enjoying the wilderness? Seems like a wheel chair would fit the same regulations.
So having the trail "not carry the feel of the city" is more important than the discrimination of the handicapped?
Those idiots are so blinded with their own rectums, they don't really think of the whole situation with clear eyes.
Skooks. That's just amazing someone would tell you that. I take it the wild bum habitat of under I-5 is protected wilderness? An MTB park is worse? I would think the environmentalists would have nothing but praise for that project.
One thing is certain, even environmentalists hate the Sierra club. Bunch of selfish ass-wipes.
So having the trail "not carry the feel of the city" is more important than the discrimination of the handicapped?
Those idiots are so blinded with their own rectums, they don't really think of the whole situation with clear eyes.
Skooks. That's just amazing someone would tell you that. I take it the wild bum habitat of under I-5 is protected wilderness? An MTB park is worse? I would think the environmentalists would have nothing but praise for that project.
One thing is certain, even environmentalists hate the Sierra club. Bunch of selfish ass-wipes.
Last edited:
Well they buy land with the discount rate then sell it when the price goes up, all the time acting like they are angels. I don't think washington's sales tax evens out buying a pair of boots vs. a bike, helmet, gear etc. Lets see.... $500 at best VS $10,000.... If big brother wants money sounds like the mountain bikers are the ones to support.
I also find it funny that they waste this much time based on a few trails. I don't see any SC members out there building bridges over creeks or streams to make them more friendly for everyone.
Mike V responded to an email that i sent out to the then BBTC Yahoo list serve.
i think i was talking about the plans i had for the animal signs or something.... But i dug it up to look at again.
What a frikkin tool.
Shame on you! It's truly sad to see how Native American stewardship
of the Earth has come to this: the most destructive activity ever
allowed in a park.
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are
inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to
mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. It's dishonest of mountain
bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes.
They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why
isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of
walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more
harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and
that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle
the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7). I found that of the seven
studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2)
in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to
come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously
avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did
not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et
al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently
incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain
biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them,
but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills
small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife
and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of
nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
Mike
i think i was talking about the plans i had for the animal signs or something.... But i dug it up to look at again.
What a frikkin tool.
Shame on you! It's truly sad to see how Native American stewardship
of the Earth has come to this: the most destructive activity ever
allowed in a park.
Bicycles should not be allowed in any natural area. They are
inanimate objects and have no rights. There is also no right to
mountain bike. That was settled in federal court in 1994:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10. It's dishonest of mountain
bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes.
They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why
isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of
walking....
A favorite myth of mountain bikers is that mountain biking is no more
harmful to wildlife, people, and the environment than hiking, and
that science supports that view. Of course, it's not true. To settle
the matter once and for all, I read all of the research they cited,
and wrote a review of the research on mountain biking impacts (see
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7). I found that of the seven
studies they cited, (1) all were written by mountain bikers, and (2)
in every case, the authors misinterpreted their own data, in order to
come to the conclusion that they favored. They also studiously
avoided mentioning another scientific study (Wisdom et al) which did
not favor mountain biking, and came to the opposite conclusions.
Those were all experimental studies. Two other studies (by White et
al and by Jeff Marion) used a survey design, which is inherently
incapable of answering that question (comparing hiking with mountain
biking). I only mention them because mountain bikers often cite them,
but scientifically, they are worthless.
Mountain biking accelerates erosion, creates V-shaped ruts, kills
small animals and plants on and next to the trail, drives wildlife
and other trail users out of the
area, and (worst of all) teaches kids that the rough treatment of
nature is okay (it's NOT!). What's good about THAT?
Mike
Can you imagine how unhappy that guy is? I bet he is a miserable person. I'd like to ask him why hiking trails are legal. You have to tear out plants and what not to make any trail which is obviously a very violent way to treat nature which is why he doesn't like mountain bikers. I'm sure in his mind the means justify the ends.
Fortunately most people are far more reasonable than him.
Fortunately most people are far more reasonable than him.
We are still moving along with the FS. Right now were are still on track to get approval from the FS this summer sometime. We will see what happens with the Sierra Club? They may hold us up but I am still confident that we will get through.
I will post info as it comes available. Feel free to post questions.
Joel
I will post info as it comes available. Feel free to post questions.
Joel
Snow race?
No snow race this year. As much as I liked riding it, it was too snow dependent and we were always having to move the date which was tough for people.
Joel
Joel
You guys think the Sierra club is bad...check out this group of self-centered-poor-understanding-non-accepting group of tools.
http://www.stopthrillcraft.org/
I found out about them in various Jeep club threads (it's reposted once in awhile). I guess they don't want any of our soldiers who lost limbs in the war and are incapable of walking, or other disadvantaged people, to see nature?
~Scott
http://www.stopthrillcraft.org/
I found out about them in various Jeep club threads (it's reposted once in awhile). I guess they don't want any of our soldiers who lost limbs in the war and are incapable of walking, or other disadvantaged people, to see nature?
~Scott
Last edited:
Let the record stand that the sierra club is ANTI-moutain biking. These people have the same mentality that the forest service does about letting you ride trails. They want you OUT. Do not support the sierra club or the forest diservice. whew. rant over.
Don't forget the WTA. Their goal is wildeness designation which means no bikes!
Why don't idiots like this attempt tackle real issues such as housing developments? shoot...
In case everybody did not see the Seattle Times article two weeks ago here is what we are up against.
Joel
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008668099_stevenspass25m.html
Joel
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008668099_stevenspass25m.html
Why don't idiots like this attempt tackle real issues such as housing developments? shoot... [/QUOTE]
Because the Growth Management Act GMA allows homes to be built within a specific area of the Puget Sound.
[/QUOTE]Because the Growth Management Act GMA allows homes to be built within a specific area of the Puget Sound.
Everything you need to know about Mike V. Short story, he's a jackass, he's been doing this for *years* and is not worth responding to:
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/3398/Mr-ABC.html
Stevenspass...keep it up!!
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/3398/Mr-ABC.html
Stevenspass...keep it up!!
quoted:
It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
<<<what is this guy 104 yrs old lol ???
I for one am so stoked to hear this park might take shape. I would definitely day trip there from the lower mainland (BC eh!)
In winter many times I prefer to go south to Baker rather than to Whistler.
That Sierra Designs club guy is a muppet !
It's dishonest of mountain bikers to say that they don't have access to trails closed to bikes. They have EXACTLY the same access as everyone else -- ON FOOT! Why isn't that good enough for mountain bikers? They are all capable of walking....
<<<what is this guy 104 yrs old lol ???
I for one am so stoked to hear this park might take shape. I would definitely day trip there from the lower mainland (BC eh!)
In winter many times I prefer to go south to Baker rather than to Whistler.
That Sierra Designs club guy is a muppet !
When the Sierra Club people come to the door asking for money, I tell them I used to be a member and that I'd join again if it came out in support of mountain biking. They get real quiet.
There's no point to arguing with someone so clearly irrational, he's only going to twist anything we say and feed it to his psycho friends. Someone so ridiculously lost doesn't need the attention this guy and his club seeks.
It is crazy to me how much time and energy these guys will take in trying to stop bike trails at a ski area. We are not out to rape the land but to build sustainable trail in an already disturbed area. If anything I would think they would want to support building bike trails at Stevens strictly on a containment issue to a certain area. Oh well the struggle continues.
Joel
Joel
This is a really the same type of thinking that started skate parks sprouting up everywhere. City's did not want people street skating so they build parks to give people a place to go. We need to see more of this in the mountain bike scene and after a warming up period I think a lot of people will have a change of heart about how the land is treated.
So when do the lifts start lol
If I had my way, lifts would spin sooner than later.
Yay!! soon enough we will enjoy the trail there, and while we all wish we could rip them up this summer, by waiting another year they should have time to get a few more trails in, variety keeps things going...and lessens traffic jams
Awesome!
The Sierra Club is in direct opposition to good forestry management and everything US forest service was created for. They're all about preservation instead of conservation. Quite elitist, actually (it's ok for *them* to use the land how/when *they* want to).
And about those trails... last time I went to Whistler, which would be the busiest and largest mountain bike trail network I can think of, there were bears everywhere... and birds, and all kinds of wildlife. If you stop and rest a bit on a trail, you'll also notice that it's not that noisy, either.
Finally, there were tons of hikers/sightseers, too... zealots are blind. And dumb.
// Rant off //
One time at Whistler I was there with our FS guys and we counted the number of time mtn bikers came by a mother and cub bear and he was amazed. Whistler proves there is no issue with mtn biker and wildlife co-existing.
Not to mention people on the lift tend to see the wildlife and shout a warning about it. Last time I was up there someone called down there were two bears on B line, how nice! And all the more reason to take a better trail! But really i have watched them build the redbull dirtjumps running dozers and 100yrds away is a bear eating after a long winter. If anything it gives more people a better appreciation of wildlife and the outdoors. Besides, my Tax dollars pay for government land and I know my bike stuff cost WAY more then "Joe or Jill Sierra"'s pair of hiking boots and pretentious attitude.
A lot of people don't know Sierra club likes to buy the land with conservation dollars then ends up selling it for profit so they can do it again. Its "feel good" way of flipping land as if it were a house. I just cannot get on board with this type of mentality.