You say that like the DOG is dumb...
Sweet Black Diamond (WA) Trails!
- Thread starter ThomRandolph
- Start date
i am saying this as someone who is not going to be working at Duthie Hill, as in i'll likely be focusing my energy in other areas, like riding a bike....
But let me take a quick second and spam for Duthie Hill, probably something i won't do to the extent as i have for Colonnade. (i'm hoping i don't have to).
But let me be clear and vague so as to not make anyone uncomfortable. There will likely be a re-birth of that berm trail at Duthie, and it will be very similar for a reason. And regardless, i'm very confident, from talking to Mike Westra about Duthie, that he really really want's to put a huge emphasis on trails with "flow". Which berms are highly conducive to. i have a huge suspicion that the trails will all be planned and flagged so you can carry a nice amount of speed around the corners, and pumpable in spots to carry your speed from a down to an up. Unlike how people have decided to route trail at Lake Sawyer in a more tight twisty format. Trail building is like Chocolate and Vanilla, when there is too much of it you gotta do Strawberry.... i prefer Neapolitan myself...
From the initial sound of the Duthie project i'm really excited to hear of the ideas and possiblities. In my mind i would absolutely love to be involved in Duthie, but my body and life say that i cannot. i hope others take the ball and run, and make Duthie kick total ass....
No mas spam para me, adios.
So....what would you say if I told you that the Berm trail maybe did not HAVE to stay dead?
Looks like there's a bunch out there reading this who actually WANT that trail to be cool and fun and not XC. Yes? Well, then let's bring that message to the Church! What's the worst they can do: say "no"? Well, how about we convince them there are a sizable number of people who would want it, and who could be trusted to work with them and not against them?
If we can do that, then maybe that trail CAN come back. But, I can almost guarantee if nobody is willing to sit with us at the table and speak up about what you want, then it ain't a-gonna happen.
Ever walked into a McDonald's and stood at the counter and refused to ask for what you wanted? Did you ever GET what you wanted? Yeah, I didn't think so (armed robberies no included). So, step right up and see if what you want is on that menu! You want fries with that? You might just be surprised.
Thom
Looks like there's a bunch out there reading this who actually WANT that trail to be cool and fun and not XC. Yes? Well, then let's bring that message to the Church! What's the worst they can do: say "no"? Well, how about we convince them there are a sizable number of people who would want it, and who could be trusted to work with them and not against them?
If we can do that, then maybe that trail CAN come back. But, I can almost guarantee if nobody is willing to sit with us at the table and speak up about what you want, then it ain't a-gonna happen.
Ever walked into a McDonald's and stood at the counter and refused to ask for what you wanted? Did you ever GET what you wanted? Yeah, I didn't think so (armed robberies no included). So, step right up and see if what you want is on that menu! You want fries with that? You might just be surprised.
Thom
If the berm trail was to come back that would be awesome but it doesn't mean that any of the of trails that were torn down would come back. Sounds like only the berm trail and nothing else. Many people aren't going to drive that far just for that. If there were other freeride/DH trails that would be awesome but it's not going to happen. If the church had just come out and left signs saying "please contact" or something on those lines before they went and destroyed those trails I bet they would have gotten more
co-operation from the builders but since that happen it's going to make the local builders not want anything do to with that place which was to bad.
Just my 2 cents.
co-operation from the builders but since that happen it's going to make the local builders not want anything do to with that place which was to bad.
Just my 2 cents.
I'll agree and make it a total of 4 cents. Not to say the Church didn't have the right (if it was their property, then they had the right). But, the talk of saving something that was already destroyed makes no sense. The builders built it, the owners tore it down. That's pretty loud and clear. It would be better to put energy into building something else.
I think it's safe to say that both sides overstepped what a reasonable person might have done with a bit of thought and tolerance: Builders AND the Church.
So, let's say we have this XC-style single-track trail at the top of the hill, an old gravel road even further back, and old jeep trails and a road at the bottom. In between, we have a bunch of torn up dirt and "woody debris". Is your point that it would better to take that and design/build something better instead of trying to resurrect one of the old trails? Or, is your point that because people got unhappy, that we should just abandon that hillside because the builders won't come to the table?
Certainly the first would be more workable than the second. More work, but better in the long run. And more likely to get us riders something instead of nothing.
So, let's say we have this XC-style single-track trail at the top of the hill, an old gravel road even further back, and old jeep trails and a road at the bottom. In between, we have a bunch of torn up dirt and "woody debris". Is your point that it would better to take that and design/build something better instead of trying to resurrect one of the old trails? Or, is your point that because people got unhappy, that we should just abandon that hillside because the builders won't come to the table?
Certainly the first would be more workable than the second. More work, but better in the long run. And more likely to get us riders something instead of nothing.
I guess my point is that I'm sadden by this ordeal. My personal opinion is that the builders have no say and probably wont step to the table cause if they were to speak out it wont go anywhere especially since after a few years of building it just got torn down with ZERO notice or any communication from the church. Yeah it sucks to have seen them cut down trees and use nails and blah blah blah but it's gone. I'll just cry a river build a bridge and get over it.
It's not that people got unhappy, it's that no one in their right mind enjoys being Sisyphus. (Look it up beaches.) It's too easy to say that people over-acted and that people are unhappy. I am one that rode the Berm trail many times. In fact, I have video of it and I will put it up soon. I am not unhappy it is gone. I don't think the builders are necessarily unhappy.
Every time you rode out there, you knew it would disappear one day. But to think that the guys who built it, I can only guess as I am not one of the builders, would want to sit down with The Church and discuss keeping it, greatly overlooks what the current environment is in this area. Due to the progression of our sport and the inability of those in position to advance advocacy for ride spots at the level required by the advance riders, we have a do it and get out mentality that abounds.
The last thing anyone would want to do, is justify themselves to someone who doesn't get it. The Church's actions, while legally appropriate, showed they were frightened and didn't get it. It's easier to just go and build somewhere else. I speak practically here. The thing that gets tiring on RM, is that so many people who can barely do a drop without tensing up, or who grab their brakes the moment they start going too fast, give advice to their cousins-the riders who can't go fast enough or jump far enough, about how to go about getting trails we want. The reason these other types don't help us, is that they think a few jumps here, or a AM trail there is all the area needs. They are happy we have that. What many of you who do not race or simply are satisfied to ride well, do not know, is the berm trail was about getting speed out of corners. Not learning to take corners fast, but getting speed out them. On a good run, one basically no-braked the entire run of 32 berms. It was making me faster. Notice that there were no jumps in the trail. Ever wonder why? Who wants to explain all that to a bulldozer driving landlord?
This is the point. It's not worth it, not because people are unhappy. RIP Berm trail, you were great while you lasted. By the way, I know first hand that the initial report on here was a little exaggerated. Ferns were moved and replanted. Drainage built to control erosion, etc. While some of the builders (there were several groups) crossed the line with their saws, they didn't do it to the extent reported here. That's one thing that frustrated me. So many people opinionated here that probably never made it out there. If you were one that never made it out there and then tossed out an opinion about the builders based on the exaggerated report here, that kind of makes you a fool.
I am curious how much damage the Church did with their bulldozer. In fact, did they have a permit for it? Just a little irony!
Last edited:
Hmmmm...pretty defeatist stuff!
I'll be the first to admit I don't ride MTB like that. Yeah, I use my brakes. That others don't makes me respect their riding ability all the more, but it doesn't mean I have any desire to do what they do. I'm just not into hero worship, and I like what I do, how I do it. But, not everyone i know enjoys flying down a mountainside on a skinny-tire road bike at 65+MPH either. And I can tell you exactly what I like about roads that let me do that. I can't however, tell you what makes a good berm trail.
But, at least I know that I don't have a clue what's wanted by those who DO ride like that. I can see your points about what made that trail great, and I count that as a valuable opinion I'm glad you gave me.
The Church called me, out of the blue, because they had it on good authority that I would try to open the communication between the two groups. The thing to keep in mind is this: Real Life Church DOES Want Riders out there. Not "maybe", and not "until they build the church". They want riders out there today, and tomorrow, and 10 years from now, and 50 years from now.
I keep reading here "oh, the church tore down our stuff, so that proves they are all a$$holes who won't listen to anything I say". And guess what? The church called me saying "those a$$holes built all this stuff on our land without asking, they just want what they want without any regard to us". Well, guess what? The Church is openly asking for your input and guidance to find a solution. Don't prove them right as they stand there waiting for you to open your mouth and ask.
My role here is to be your bullhorn. Tell me what you want out there; tell me what you want them to do/say to make you realize they want your input. And no, we all know they're not going to put back everything the way it was; any more than they expect the riders/builders to.
Seems like we've all spent more than a couple hours typing into this forum, displaying some pretty strong passion for not making any progress. I say let's get together over a brew, and come up with what you would want out there.
Whatdya say?
I'll be the first to admit I don't ride MTB like that. Yeah, I use my brakes. That others don't makes me respect their riding ability all the more, but it doesn't mean I have any desire to do what they do. I'm just not into hero worship, and I like what I do, how I do it. But, not everyone i know enjoys flying down a mountainside on a skinny-tire road bike at 65+MPH either. And I can tell you exactly what I like about roads that let me do that. I can't however, tell you what makes a good berm trail.
But, at least I know that I don't have a clue what's wanted by those who DO ride like that. I can see your points about what made that trail great, and I count that as a valuable opinion I'm glad you gave me.
The Church called me, out of the blue, because they had it on good authority that I would try to open the communication between the two groups. The thing to keep in mind is this: Real Life Church DOES Want Riders out there. Not "maybe", and not "until they build the church". They want riders out there today, and tomorrow, and 10 years from now, and 50 years from now.
I keep reading here "oh, the church tore down our stuff, so that proves they are all a$$holes who won't listen to anything I say". And guess what? The church called me saying "those a$$holes built all this stuff on our land without asking, they just want what they want without any regard to us". Well, guess what? The Church is openly asking for your input and guidance to find a solution. Don't prove them right as they stand there waiting for you to open your mouth and ask.
My role here is to be your bullhorn. Tell me what you want out there; tell me what you want them to do/say to make you realize they want your input. And no, we all know they're not going to put back everything the way it was; any more than they expect the riders/builders to.
Seems like we've all spent more than a couple hours typing into this forum, displaying some pretty strong passion for not making any progress. I say let's get together over a brew, and come up with what you would want out there.
Whatdya say?
Sooo, nobody understands what "I" want. So in your opinion it's justified to build not because there is absolutely no place that suits your ability to ride, but that they can't build something cool enough, fast enough. So your own personal progression takes priority. Am i correct in this interpretation?
Yet you don't work in the process to speed things along? i don't know if you do or not, i can't keep track....
But that's a big part of the deal, Colonnade is slashing more drops, jumps, berms and other things because of poor volunteer turnout at the end. That's a fact, and that's how these skill building parks work, whoever shows to build get's a pretty big say in the overall look of the project/trail/feature/stunt.
There is an opposite side of the coin and that's representing what riders who don't like your style of riding want. Many aspire to learn and get better, but many will not hesitate to not stand and support the projects that bring more advanced trails. And go back to the old days of us versus them which will kill future projects like skills parks. Which in turn will kill many great future opportunities for all mountain bikers. You would not believe how much feedback and criticism i would and still get for the beginner trail i'm working on, for being too difficult. It's crazy, but i worked as hard as i could to make it acceptable for all people to ride, but also make it hard enough for people to get better. Like i said, it doesn't hurt to get the people that have no skillz down that path of having them. Makes for more riders that want what you want, right?
So ultimately i get what you're saying, but know there are people that i also disagree with that are on the entire opposite side of the spectrum and don't care at all about your progression. (i don't care about your progression either, but i'm not a person who will not support you, as is obvious by my actions, opinions, past and present) Especially if it means it screws up or closes a trail they like to ride on. It really makes for a tough situation for people like me who are working as best as we can, doing what we think is good for ALL mountain bikers so we can have the best of both worlds.
Anyways thanks all the same DM and SP. i fully understand that how things are, are still going to be. Trails will be built, found out, and eliminated now and probably for a while.(Bridge over the river of tears, that was good). But please understand that Colonnade almost died before it even got to Phase 2. Alot of people sacrificed life, time, and money we could have been using to progress or digress or drink smoke or hell time we lost that we could have been lighting ourselves on fire for the fukc of it. But like i said before, we have now what most people on this board would have thought IMPOSSIBLE before. Ask that Mmike dude, he used to live here, and he would have bet his first born we wouldn't have pulled off what we did at Colonnade. So it might be a foolhardy dream on my part, but the reason for skills parks and other future projects/trails is make places so good, there will be no reason for illegal building. Yah it might not ever happen in our lifetime, BUT maybe it will, again Colonnade impossible just a few years ago...
Now sorry for running off on this Colonnade tangent AGAIN! But the Lake Sawyer stuff is related to the debate to me. And before i get done let's just piss everyone off while i'm at it, and state for the record, my whole tirade goes for the XC trails that are built there as well. And when i speak of free for all, i am mostly speaking of the tone that all the XC building is doing. Was any of the XC track built with permission? Not that it matters too much, but the tone has been set here right? And i don't much mind how Lake Sawyer started but look at it now, all of what, maybe 4 million miles of new singletrack that is popping up all over the place out there. i dunno i might be talking out my arse as i havent ridden there in forever. But everytime i ride through there over the years it's constantly sprawling. So if it appeared as if i was trying to speak specifically about the Church area, i'm not really. And i'm also speaking of being better organized and represented for projects like Henry's Ridge. i'm so out of the loop on that, but i hope that the shaky start resumes with all the original players, assuring the County that things are cool.
Yes it can be a pain in the ass, but building under watchful eyes of land managers is reality. But believe me in that it's just a challenge to be more creative, it should not be automatically viewed on as something to kill a project, and say ahh well fukc it let's drag up.... (not all the time i should say)
Anyways, nobody owes us nothing, we're all on our own out here. Like it or not all we have is each other....
http://www.bbtc.org/recreation/show_image.php?image_id=3301
Yet you don't work in the process to speed things along? i don't know if you do or not, i can't keep track....
But that's a big part of the deal, Colonnade is slashing more drops, jumps, berms and other things because of poor volunteer turnout at the end. That's a fact, and that's how these skill building parks work, whoever shows to build get's a pretty big say in the overall look of the project/trail/feature/stunt.
There is an opposite side of the coin and that's representing what riders who don't like your style of riding want. Many aspire to learn and get better, but many will not hesitate to not stand and support the projects that bring more advanced trails. And go back to the old days of us versus them which will kill future projects like skills parks. Which in turn will kill many great future opportunities for all mountain bikers. You would not believe how much feedback and criticism i would and still get for the beginner trail i'm working on, for being too difficult. It's crazy, but i worked as hard as i could to make it acceptable for all people to ride, but also make it hard enough for people to get better. Like i said, it doesn't hurt to get the people that have no skillz down that path of having them. Makes for more riders that want what you want, right?
So ultimately i get what you're saying, but know there are people that i also disagree with that are on the entire opposite side of the spectrum and don't care at all about your progression. (i don't care about your progression either, but i'm not a person who will not support you, as is obvious by my actions, opinions, past and present) Especially if it means it screws up or closes a trail they like to ride on. It really makes for a tough situation for people like me who are working as best as we can, doing what we think is good for ALL mountain bikers so we can have the best of both worlds.
Anyways thanks all the same DM and SP. i fully understand that how things are, are still going to be. Trails will be built, found out, and eliminated now and probably for a while.(Bridge over the river of tears, that was good). But please understand that Colonnade almost died before it even got to Phase 2. Alot of people sacrificed life, time, and money we could have been using to progress or digress or drink smoke or hell time we lost that we could have been lighting ourselves on fire for the fukc of it. But like i said before, we have now what most people on this board would have thought IMPOSSIBLE before. Ask that Mmike dude, he used to live here, and he would have bet his first born we wouldn't have pulled off what we did at Colonnade. So it might be a foolhardy dream on my part, but the reason for skills parks and other future projects/trails is make places so good, there will be no reason for illegal building. Yah it might not ever happen in our lifetime, BUT maybe it will, again Colonnade impossible just a few years ago...
Now sorry for running off on this Colonnade tangent AGAIN! But the Lake Sawyer stuff is related to the debate to me. And before i get done let's just piss everyone off while i'm at it, and state for the record, my whole tirade goes for the XC trails that are built there as well. And when i speak of free for all, i am mostly speaking of the tone that all the XC building is doing. Was any of the XC track built with permission? Not that it matters too much, but the tone has been set here right? And i don't much mind how Lake Sawyer started but look at it now, all of what, maybe 4 million miles of new singletrack that is popping up all over the place out there. i dunno i might be talking out my arse as i havent ridden there in forever. But everytime i ride through there over the years it's constantly sprawling. So if it appeared as if i was trying to speak specifically about the Church area, i'm not really. And i'm also speaking of being better organized and represented for projects like Henry's Ridge. i'm so out of the loop on that, but i hope that the shaky start resumes with all the original players, assuring the County that things are cool.
Yes it can be a pain in the ass, but building under watchful eyes of land managers is reality. But believe me in that it's just a challenge to be more creative, it should not be automatically viewed on as something to kill a project, and say ahh well fukc it let's drag up.... (not all the time i should say)
Anyways, nobody owes us nothing, we're all on our own out here. Like it or not all we have is each other....
http://www.bbtc.org/recreation/show_image.php?image_id=3301
Last edited:
It's really hard to read your post. You go off on this self righteous stuff. I was down digging at the Colonnade tonight. I have helped in many parts of Phase II. I try to get out there as much as I can. On top of that, you probably don't know this, but I get paid to shoot and produce professionally. I have spent at least 30,000 of my own money in the last three years documenting our sport and covering the good and the frustrating. I have documented the Colonnade from the beginning of Phase I. When it is done, I'll be able to put together one tight story that will help bring on other legit projects. In fact, Mike has already used footage shot by me to help with Duthy.
While I don't dig as much as others, I do consider that my film work is a valuable part of bringing attention to our sport and our needs. I also believe that it has shown me many angles and several sides to our community. Before you judge, you have got to consider that there are many ways to give and help the community.
If you think I am attacking the work at the Colonnade you are mistaken. If you read my post I am attacking this attitude that seems to not get why people are building illegally. And specifically why the builders probably wouldn't want to rebuild the Berm Trail at BD. I know that you are proud of your work on the Colonnade, and you should be, but if you think that the Colonnade and Duthy Hill solve all the needs of the community you are smoking something better than I am. The reason illegal trails get built, is because there is a large part of the community who's needs are not getting met. Are these needs legit? As legit as any rider's needs.
Ultimately you end up proving my point in your post. It's like I pissed you off and then you realized that there is a divide between the AM and the Gravity Communities, as far as, advocating for ride spots is concerned. For the record, I believe in an equal mix of legal and illegal building. Those that want to wait in line can, but when you are asking for something that is legit, there is no reason in the world that you should wait in line. We all pay taxes, sales, property, etc. Why can't we have equal access to this land ( I know that the builders thought The Church land stopped at the trails, they thought it was public land.) Riding your bike down a steep and off a jump, or ripping a DH trail shouldn't ever be criminal?
Last edited:
Word^^
Sounds like saving the berm trail is the 1st thing people want. How about a large pump track at the bottom of it?....I would get behind building that!
Now THAT'S what I'm talkinbout!
Any reason the pump track should be at the bottom? There's some pretty flat areas up near the top too, which seems like it would make questions of rain runoff much less an issue.
How big is "big"? The ones I'm seeing are like less than 100' x 100', which is cool, just wondering what size you're thinking.
Any reason the pump track should be at the bottom? There's some pretty flat areas up near the top too, which seems like it would make questions of rain runoff much less an issue.
How big is "big"? The ones I'm seeing are like less than 100' x 100', which is cool, just wondering what size you're thinking.
I was thinking at the bottom, would be sick to ride the berm trail then flow intoa pump track, does not have to be there though. I was thinking something 2-3x the size of colonnade.
What does the church say about the berm trail? What damage has been done to it?
What does the church say about the berm trail? What damage has been done to it?
Yeah, that does sound good! Thanks for the input, fuzzycatnuts.
And, I presume you mean 2-3x the size of the pump track at Collonade...not 2-3x the size of the whole Collonade park! Though, that would definitely be sick! But it would also be hard to get their buy in on that.
From what I saw last weekend, the berm trail is in pretty bad shape; there are pieces of it still there, but it needs a LOT of work. My guess is probably 50-70% of the work that originally built it.
The Church hasn't said yes or no to anything yet, 'cause I haven't made any specific recommendations besides to fix the sign confusion. I've been holding off talking with them about specifics trail requests, hoping to get a small group to sit down with them. But, I'm not seeing "the builders" step up and say they want anything to do with that. It's neither good or bad really, and I half expected it. Maybe it's better that way, to avoid any shouting matches.
But, looks like we're making SOME progress here and I think it's getting to be time to walk the scene and do some asking. The weekend rain might even make them realize the time is now.
And, I presume you mean 2-3x the size of the pump track at Collonade...not 2-3x the size of the whole Collonade park! Though, that would definitely be sick! But it would also be hard to get their buy in on that.
From what I saw last weekend, the berm trail is in pretty bad shape; there are pieces of it still there, but it needs a LOT of work. My guess is probably 50-70% of the work that originally built it.
The Church hasn't said yes or no to anything yet, 'cause I haven't made any specific recommendations besides to fix the sign confusion. I've been holding off talking with them about specifics trail requests, hoping to get a small group to sit down with them. But, I'm not seeing "the builders" step up and say they want anything to do with that. It's neither good or bad really, and I half expected it. Maybe it's better that way, to avoid any shouting matches.
But, looks like we're making SOME progress here and I think it's getting to be time to walk the scene and do some asking. The weekend rain might even make them realize the time is now.
Fair enough. My point was not to disparage you in your efforts. Thank you for your work.
i agree. But tell me how i'm being judgemental. i'm not sentencing anyone to any bike jail time. i just have an opinion. That opinion is if we "move" away from illegal building, and "move" more towards legal stuff, we will get to what you want faster.
Reread your own writing and tell me that you're not looking out for your own interests. Don't worry you are FAR from alone, and it's a pretty common point of view.
We totally agree. Where we disagree is "how" to get there faster. Skills parks, Galby, PA show land managers this can be done. If you look at my original point i'm saying we should "move" in this direction. If you look at my last post i say until we get to the point where illegal will be unnecessary.
You never pissed me off. But what does piss me off is my own inability to make my point understood.
And i hate the word All-Mountain. Sounds like a class of truck... But that's the latest jargon for XC now i suppose?
Anyways that's a bunch of nuthin...
Your last point is idealism, and it actually is based on the criminal. But that's ok because i've built criminally myself, i never made any illusions to myself about that.
But i agree with your premise in that you're totally right. You shouldn't have had to wait the last ten or so years to get gravity trails. i agree, and the fact that there is and will be illegal building is a testament for the need of more gravity trails.
Again where i diverge from you is the process. i think we have to protect and support the skills parks like a fragile baby so they can grow up to be future projects like NorthShore I-90. If we as a mountain biking community can prove we can play by some rules, i think it will happen sooner than later.
Sorry if i'm comin off self righteous.
Skookum - I reply to your above post like this. You are judgmental because you claim to understand people's motivations. If fighting for what I believe are a group's aspirations makes me looking out for my own interest, it's only because I am a part of that group. A group of riders that I believe would be gladly overlooked by land managers and organizers , because we frankly want more than they are comfortable giving. And my approach isn't ideological or criminal. It's pragmatic and "Civil Disobedience." Pragmatic, because with out illegal building, there would never be progression. No one would get better, because we'd have to wait for people to come around, and that is happening much slower than the sport of Gravity Biking is advancing. Illegal building has created the need and shown the way for the legal places. And finally, people who have exercised civil disobedience have had parks made in their honor - Walden Woods, for example. It always takes a while before the sheep see the value created when one steps outside the flock and carves a new path. This doesn't mean I don't believe in the legal pursuit of it all. It's just that they both feed off each other and only someone with blinders on would not see that.
So, what is it I am after by entering into this repartee? I don't like how those in our sport who benefit from the builders and riders who go outside the norm turn around and judge them as a problem to the sport. Both groups need each other. There as to be people fighting for legal access, and there has to be people building illegally. That is what has advanced our sport.
So, what is it I am after by entering into this repartee? I don't like how those in our sport who benefit from the builders and riders who go outside the norm turn around and judge them as a problem to the sport. Both groups need each other. There as to be people fighting for legal access, and there has to be people building illegally. That is what has advanced our sport.
Last edited:
SeaPig (and others):
I suppose the statement that illegal building has advanced the sport depends on what you mean by "advance". If you mean "provide opportunities for creating edge-pushing and typically dangerous stunts that make the sport and your films gather an edgy cult following, and improve the highest extensions of technical skill", then yeah, I could agree.
However, if you mean "advance" in the sense of "advance the cause" of gaining respectability, of gaining and keeping access, of becoming acceptable and expected as part of bicycling facilities by public and private landowners...well, all I can is something I think you said, SeaPig: "you must be smoking something better than what I am".
Stunts, structures, jumps, connector tails, shortcuts, even new trail entrances constantly raise the ire of landowners of all forms. Even the trailbuilders get ornery when people change "their" trails. And every time I've seen and been involved watching what happens (Tolt, St Ed's, three times at ToP, and numerous times at Sawyer), it is almost always the fact that talks never occurred. Instead, the additions were added simply because somebody decided they were somehow entitled to do so.
In other news, I heard that Pastor Steve from the Church went up and took a look around Colonnade this weekend. His response? Can't quote 'cause he didn't say it to me, but I'm told "He drove down to the new extreme course in Seattle himself this week and thought that it was cool. He indicated that he really thought that there was a chance to have something like that on the church's property."
I'm here to take the chance. And I don't care one bit whether the recipients of the benefits are the legals or the rogues.
In other news, the Church has also informed me that they in fact do have a permit covering the work. The permit number is FPA/N2412985 and it is valid from 7/15/2008 until 7/15/2010. The church also had to submit a forest management plan to King County - which it did last year. The permit is based on that forest management plan that was approved by King County DDES (building department) and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP). It took at least eight months for the church to get the permit.
Now, how many of you noticed the permit runs through 2010? Yes, that's almost two years. Two years in which the Church is permitted to use equipment in specific ways, not counting renewals. Given the difficulties and human effort put into moving rock and dirt on Tiger, Tolt, and at Colonnade, I'd say it might be an excellent opportunity to work WITH them to put that equipment to good use...making trails! Like that hoped-for larger-than-Colonnade pump track...how excellent would it be to have them helping us make THAT with a backhoe!?!?!?!
Thom.
I suppose the statement that illegal building has advanced the sport depends on what you mean by "advance". If you mean "provide opportunities for creating edge-pushing and typically dangerous stunts that make the sport and your films gather an edgy cult following, and improve the highest extensions of technical skill", then yeah, I could agree.
However, if you mean "advance" in the sense of "advance the cause" of gaining respectability, of gaining and keeping access, of becoming acceptable and expected as part of bicycling facilities by public and private landowners...well, all I can is something I think you said, SeaPig: "you must be smoking something better than what I am".
Stunts, structures, jumps, connector tails, shortcuts, even new trail entrances constantly raise the ire of landowners of all forms. Even the trailbuilders get ornery when people change "their" trails. And every time I've seen and been involved watching what happens (Tolt, St Ed's, three times at ToP, and numerous times at Sawyer), it is almost always the fact that talks never occurred. Instead, the additions were added simply because somebody decided they were somehow entitled to do so.
In other news, I heard that Pastor Steve from the Church went up and took a look around Colonnade this weekend. His response? Can't quote 'cause he didn't say it to me, but I'm told "He drove down to the new extreme course in Seattle himself this week and thought that it was cool. He indicated that he really thought that there was a chance to have something like that on the church's property."
I'm here to take the chance. And I don't care one bit whether the recipients of the benefits are the legals or the rogues.
In other news, the Church has also informed me that they in fact do have a permit covering the work. The permit number is FPA/N2412985 and it is valid from 7/15/2008 until 7/15/2010. The church also had to submit a forest management plan to King County - which it did last year. The permit is based on that forest management plan that was approved by King County DDES (building department) and King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (DNRP). It took at least eight months for the church to get the permit.
Now, how many of you noticed the permit runs through 2010? Yes, that's almost two years. Two years in which the Church is permitted to use equipment in specific ways, not counting renewals. Given the difficulties and human effort put into moving rock and dirt on Tiger, Tolt, and at Colonnade, I'd say it might be an excellent opportunity to work WITH them to put that equipment to good use...making trails! Like that hoped-for larger-than-Colonnade pump track...how excellent would it be to have them helping us make THAT with a backhoe!?!?!?!
Thom.
Last edited:
Thom - I know it's hard not to get too personal here. In fact, I just deleted a bunch in my response to you that I feel got too personal. But, the truth is you don't know my motivation. If you think I have taken this on, because I am advocating something selfish or personal, you are wrong.
So, I say again for simple clarity. The illegal builders advance the cause of the sport. Proof: you are trying to get them to join you in legalizing the Berm Trail. The illegal trail builders usually know and build what is missing from the organized and legit. They show us what is next.
In closing, a book could be written on how many illegal spots have become legal. All I am saying is respect and don't trivialize those that go out and build illegally. One of the reasons that people have been slow in coming around to you, is the way it all went down and the lack of understanding on the problem that was implicit in yours and others posts. In some way, the builders have become the heart beat of a young and growing sport. I don't look to shoot anything in particular. I just look for the story and my search has shown me what I have brought out in this argument.
My advice is that if you and others want illegal building to go way (as much as it can), then you have got to learn what it is that people are looking for and help that to be built. The only way you can learn this is by being open to a truly honest dialog.
So, I say again for simple clarity. The illegal builders advance the cause of the sport. Proof: you are trying to get them to join you in legalizing the Berm Trail. The illegal trail builders usually know and build what is missing from the organized and legit. They show us what is next.
In closing, a book could be written on how many illegal spots have become legal. All I am saying is respect and don't trivialize those that go out and build illegally. One of the reasons that people have been slow in coming around to you, is the way it all went down and the lack of understanding on the problem that was implicit in yours and others posts. In some way, the builders have become the heart beat of a young and growing sport. I don't look to shoot anything in particular. I just look for the story and my search has shown me what I have brought out in this argument.
My advice is that if you and others want illegal building to go way (as much as it can), then you have got to learn what it is that people are looking for and help that to be built. The only way you can learn this is by being open to a truly honest dialog.
Last edited:
Well, I suspect my motivation is similarly being misinterpreted.
I'm not interested in arguing a post-game analysis of whether something "advances the sport" or not. That conversation, in it's current form is nothing but conjecture and wishful aligned-perspective, narrowly-scoped intellectual dishonesty (aka BS). And that goes for BOTH sides of the debate. Without actual controlled data to back up the claims of greater or lesser progress, the conclusions are neither philosophically nor sociologically useful. Reminds me of the great hikers-versus-MTB trail damage "debates" of years ago. Nothing but religious "my way is better" thinking that doesn't help anyone, and is ultimately won by the "might-makes-right" decision making process. Can you say "Wilderness Exclusions"?
What I'm trying to push here is not an abstract concept. It's about what are the desired next steps for a specific piece of land, owned by a specific set of people, a specific set of trails on that land, at a specific time: right now.
The question I put to you and everyone else is this: are you willing to stand up and be part of what will happen next? Or do you want to be a spectator to the world that we dream up and work to make a reality? Either way is perfectly fine with me. But without your participation, I can only guess as to whether what we come up with is what you're dreaming of.
Thom Randolph
425-761-5259
thom at tctrandolph dot com
I'm not interested in arguing a post-game analysis of whether something "advances the sport" or not. That conversation, in it's current form is nothing but conjecture and wishful aligned-perspective, narrowly-scoped intellectual dishonesty (aka BS). And that goes for BOTH sides of the debate. Without actual controlled data to back up the claims of greater or lesser progress, the conclusions are neither philosophically nor sociologically useful. Reminds me of the great hikers-versus-MTB trail damage "debates" of years ago. Nothing but religious "my way is better" thinking that doesn't help anyone, and is ultimately won by the "might-makes-right" decision making process. Can you say "Wilderness Exclusions"?
What I'm trying to push here is not an abstract concept. It's about what are the desired next steps for a specific piece of land, owned by a specific set of people, a specific set of trails on that land, at a specific time: right now.
The question I put to you and everyone else is this: are you willing to stand up and be part of what will happen next? Or do you want to be a spectator to the world that we dream up and work to make a reality? Either way is perfectly fine with me. But without your participation, I can only guess as to whether what we come up with is what you're dreaming of.
Thom Randolph
425-761-5259
thom at tctrandolph dot com
Last edited:
Thom, why don't you and The Church go and rebuild what was there, then you'll understand my argument. I promise, if you do, builders will come out of the wood work and help. You'll then see that what I am talking about isn't abstract at all. You'll then see why illegal building happens. You'll also show the builders you want to work together on this, despite the bulldozing, etc, that you're serious about this. It will get their trust.
Fuzycatnuts suggested a pump track at the bottom. The berm trail ran like a pump track or a dual slalom course. One thing this area really needs is a Dual Slalom course. A place where Friday night races could be run for example. A place for practice for those interested in that sport. A place for learning for those interested in being more flowy riders. A course like this really needs no jumps of any difficulty. They are more about pump track type of riding. This should not require big jumps and be relatively easy to put in place.
Say your going to build something like that, start the work and you'll have people lining up to help.
Fuzycatnuts suggested a pump track at the bottom. The berm trail ran like a pump track or a dual slalom course. One thing this area really needs is a Dual Slalom course. A place where Friday night races could be run for example. A place for practice for those interested in that sport. A place for learning for those interested in being more flowy riders. A course like this really needs no jumps of any difficulty. They are more about pump track type of riding. This should not require big jumps and be relatively easy to put in place.
Say your going to build something like that, start the work and you'll have people lining up to help.
Last edited:
What am I missing here????
Seapig, you keep talking about advancing the sport. It seems the topic of this thread was an opportunity to do just that?
I understand people are resentful that the trails they built and/or liked to ride got demolished but it seems to me that you and others need to get past that. The land owners are offering a chance for people to build things that will live on for the forseeable future. And in a place that is close enough to town to almost consider it in-city.
How can this not look like a winning situation to you? I have not seen one post that says what you want built would be denied???
And here we are being offered an oportunity to do just that and people aren't willing to do what it takes to make it happen.
Locally we have gained Collonade but lost Snocrummie. For the full tilit DH'r we would still be a -.5 in return on that deal. If you can show me anything local that has went from bootleg to legit please do. If you can do that then please show where that happened where the people didn't put in the effort to get it done.
And I am not sure of the process inlvolved with BD, but it seems to me that this could be a "now" thing. No long city council meetings(S, because it takes MANY to get something like this done), begging for permission to build a park with almost 100% volunteer labor and materials on property that was lost to drugs, derelicts and neglect, not having to cave into dog park demands or other user groups.
He is asking people to get involved and TELL THEM what they want to build. I have not seen one thing where he said you can't do this or that.
I would hope common sence would tell you what building methods can and can't be used. But that doesn't sound like the scope of what is wanted will be affected except that it needs to be built responsibly.
What am I missing here???
Seapig, you keep talking about advancing the sport. It seems the topic of this thread was an opportunity to do just that?
I understand people are resentful that the trails they built and/or liked to ride got demolished but it seems to me that you and others need to get past that. The land owners are offering a chance for people to build things that will live on for the forseeable future. And in a place that is close enough to town to almost consider it in-city.
Did you miss where he asked people for input on what they want. This is your chance to step up and get some things "advanced" so to speak.
I read into what he said as there is no free lunch though. If you want it, you need to sit down and say "here is what we want". You probably won't get everything but it sounds like they are pretty open. They are not going to build it for you.
How can this not look like a winning situation to you? I have not seen one post that says what you want built would be denied???
That would have to be a pretty small book. Even on a national level that couldn't be more than a a handful of places.
And here we are being offered an oportunity to do just that and people aren't willing to do what it takes to make it happen.
Locally we have gained Collonade but lost Snocrummie. For the full tilit DH'r we would still be a -.5 in return on that deal. If you can show me anything local that has went from bootleg to legit please do. If you can do that then please show where that happened where the people didn't put in the effort to get it done.
And I am not sure of the process inlvolved with BD, but it seems to me that this could be a "now" thing. No long city council meetings(S, because it takes MANY to get something like this done), begging for permission to build a park with almost 100% volunteer labor and materials on property that was lost to drugs, derelicts and neglect, not having to cave into dog park demands or other user groups.
For one, I don't think the OP is looking to make illegal building go away except for on this property. Simple. This conversation keeps getting pulled in different directions talking about differnet places but it should only be about this one place. That you are being offered to build on WITH PERMISSION, what you want.
He is asking people to get involved and TELL THEM what they want to build. I have not seen one thing where he said you can't do this or that.
I would hope common sence would tell you what building methods can and can't be used. But that doesn't sound like the scope of what is wanted will be affected except that it needs to be built responsibly.
What am I missing here???
Thanks, SeaPig. I don't think the church (or I) have the expertise to rebuild what was there, so that's just not a likely thing. I'm more than willing to watch and see if your argument proves true. I might even try to be objective ;-).
I have myself wondered why there are no DS courses around here, so I'll include that in the list of ideas. Actual requests and ideas are great, because I can bring those to the Church. I can't bring them a abstract notion that the illegal building was somehow good...they just don't agree.
I have myself wondered why there are no DS courses around here, so I'll include that in the list of ideas. Actual requests and ideas are great, because I can bring those to the Church. I can't bring them a abstract notion that the illegal building was somehow good...they just don't agree.
Yeah, that's much of my thinking too, TrailHacker; appreciate the second perspective. If the builders making trails with permission (TWP) wanted the same thing as what the illegals wanted, they would have built that, and the illegals wouldn't have needed to build anything. Because there clearly IS a difference in the two styles, if I gather a group of the willing and the DH/Gravity brigade won't get involved, the TWP people will build what they know how to build.
This is what I would like to see happen with that area.
1) Would like to have the berm trail back
2) Would like to see the small line that was there on riders left. It wasn't anything huge or gnarly but it was something for a beginnger to get there feet wet with fr/dh
3) An advance line with slightly bigger gaps and stunts.
4) DS
5) Signs well marked from any exit that one would enter that area of the park
6) and my last request, please don't have Securitas give out the wrong information.
Securitas is the security guards for that area who gave out wrong information to the builders.
1) Would like to have the berm trail back
2) Would like to see the small line that was there on riders left. It wasn't anything huge or gnarly but it was something for a beginnger to get there feet wet with fr/dh
3) An advance line with slightly bigger gaps and stunts.
4) DS
5) Signs well marked from any exit that one would enter that area of the park
6) and my last request, please don't have Securitas give out the wrong information.
Securitas is the security guards for that area who gave out wrong information to the builders.
Just had a funny thought....I sure WISH a book had been written about turning illegal stunts and structures into legal areas. Would certainly make this whole process a LOT easier! SeaPig...great idea! We'll call it "The Road Back From Perdition: Making Illegal Stunts and Trails Legal...Forever".
places like the north shore, dry hill, post canyon, and blackrock come to mind
. and while there isn't a book if you take a peek back a few issues in decline and all the major web publications covering the sport I'm sure you'll turn up something.I would certainly get involved in an opportunity like this but I'll be moving away at the end of the week (45min from post
irate2
so it is kinda up to you guys. SP: I understand where you are coming from and indeed share some of your sentiments but at this point you are no longer being helpful and your last post just lost you any credibility in this discussion. How bout the bickering stos and you all get to work on how to get some sick trails rocking? I'll help build over christmas break, tell me when, where and what.Post Canyon in Hood river, P.A., Black Rock, the NorthShore if you count that as local. I dont think he was saying its not gong to take any effort.
Last edited:
The only place I would truly consider local (on that list) would be PA. BUT, PA might have been through a phase where they were asked to slow down or stop, but it was never really bootleg. If you go back to the MacDougals (McDougals?) putting on races there starting in '95 or '96, they had permission to be there. Not saying that later people (CN, MJ, JM, etc) didn't push the envelope and get reigned back in some, but the end result is after much hard work they have what people want.
The shore is about the same time distance but dealing with CA law and liabilities is so different its hard to inlcude them. But they have set some ground work that can be used to help the lond owners understand what is sustainable and what might appear to be very dangerous on the surface isn't really quite tame.
I take from SP's posts that he and a lot of builders are not interested in putting forth that type of effort. And thats fine but why crash the party of those that are?
Some of the points made are valid but I disagree on the whole "pushing the advances for the benefit of the whole" argument.
But the real point is still there is a GREAT OPPORTUNITY to build what was thought not possible not so many years ago. And nobody seems to be stepping up.
Personally, I have burned out on most of the building for the very reason SP stated. So I guess I really have no dog in this fight.
This is a much better conversation, IMHO. I'll never claim that I am always write. I agree with those who have found holes in my argument. I watched for many pages of this forum as the two factions of our community talked at each other. Now I hear us talking to each other, even if we don't always agree.
You're right. I was trying to remember why I thought the land was King County. Not that it would make a huge difference, but it is a difference. They told me and my wife when we were riding XC, something like it was timber land given to the County for some up coming development.
If you speak their language and stop making them feel wrong for what they have done, they'll come. I believe it's that easy.
SeaPig: you hit the nail right on my head, man. Sadly, I don't speak much of that language, and that's why I need people to step up.
Hopefully my original post was clear that I was shocked and saddened by what the Church had done. And that it looked to me like they had done more damage than the builders/riders had. And yeah, I about cried when I saw what had been done to the trails. I made it pretty clear to them that although they might have legally been in the right to do take them down, morally they had done a lot of hurt to a lot of people. Most of them realize that, I believe. But like the MTB community, they have a few "hammerheads" in their posse too.
I'm not interested in a right/wrong thing here, just a moving forward thing. If anybody imagines I somehow think they were wrong for having a hand in it, forget it. If you had a hand and you want to continue with that, I want you in these talks. If you didn't have a hand in it and you want a hand in it, I also want you in these talks. I'm not into blame-fests and pity-parties.
Hopefully my original post was clear that I was shocked and saddened by what the Church had done. And that it looked to me like they had done more damage than the builders/riders had. And yeah, I about cried when I saw what had been done to the trails. I made it pretty clear to them that although they might have legally been in the right to do take them down, morally they had done a lot of hurt to a lot of people. Most of them realize that, I believe. But like the MTB community, they have a few "hammerheads" in their posse too.
I'm not interested in a right/wrong thing here, just a moving forward thing. If anybody imagines I somehow think they were wrong for having a hand in it, forget it. If you had a hand and you want to continue with that, I want you in these talks. If you didn't have a hand in it and you want a hand in it, I also want you in these talks. I'm not into blame-fests and pity-parties.
Last edited:
I have yet to claim exactly what the builders are interested in or not, but just as Thom put himself out there. I have done the same. I feel it was important that people stop judging the illegal builders and understand that like it or not they have advanced our sport. Fuzzycatnuts pointed out in his post about all the PNW spots that started out illegal. I know for fact the Thom's post was exaggerated. I am also very sure that most of those that opinionated against the builders had never been out there. If you expected the builders to enter into this dialog, then you don't see what it is like reading all of your opinions. And isn't it ironic that you are talking about a great opportunity and "crashing the party." Really, wasn't the party already crashed?
Last edited:
SP: I was just looking over my original post; can you let me know which parts are an exaggeration? And especially which parts seem to be casting blame. From what they reported and what I myself saw, it seems pretty accurate. The only blame I'm seeing in my post is for the tragic loss of the trails from the church's work.
I am not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand what from your perspective is not right. Offlist is fine, if you prefer: thom at tctrandolph dot com.
I am not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand what from your perspective is not right. Offlist is fine, if you prefer: thom at tctrandolph dot com.
I understand that we are all closing in on a common ground, so please be sure that what I write next isn't meant to dredge up anything more. But, I made the claim, so I'll back it up. This point here is what I was calling you about. I feel if your original post had been more factual, there wouldn't have been so much back lash against the builders. As I pointed out in my first post, it wasn't just the exaggerations, but the lack of facts on who was involved and how it came to be.
First off there were several builders and they all did things differently and there were even disagreements between the builders. So while some things were built improperly, other things were built in the same way as if it were an legal spot. Also, they were built over almost a year's time, most of it over eight months or so. The idea that all this earth was destroyed and gabage everywhere is bunk. For example, I don't think you can properly claim that five acres was stripped bare. Just as I have pulled garbage out of SST (an illegal spot), I pulled garbage out of there. Most people took their garbage out. Your post made it sound like there was garbage everywhere. While it is true that one builder went nuts with the saw, he was on his own. Saws were used on dead fall, but that doesn't add up to 40 young trees cut down. That would be a hell of a lot of stumpage. I mean, your original post makes it sound as though a single group of builders went in there and created a war zone. IMHO that is why most of these people started to rail one way or another about the situation. Again, they had nothing to go on but your post. The reason I tried to call you many times and many days before I posted first, was to point out to you that I had no problem with the outcome, but that your report was opening a can of worms. While the situation was less than optimal, it wasn't as report, or even close.
That fact, and the fact that you were new on this thread and unknown by many, set up the taking of sides. I chimed in, because I believe even those that were in a sense against you, didn't even know what actually went down and how that has lead to us discussing making it happen for real.
I know nuance is lost on forums, but trust me when I say, all I was after is an honest dialog. I was willing to risk my rep (assuming it is even positive) for that. I don't hold animosity towards you or anyone on this forum. Hopefully, you all can forgive me for being stubborn on this issue.
Also, I have been working behind the scenes to learn what can be done to get us all what we want legally in King County, meetings etc. Sorry, if I don't think the current efforts are large enough in scope. A meeting I had tonight, brought something up. I think we should have a riders meeting once a month at a legal ride spot. No one in charge, until the right person steps forward, but everyone on their bikes riding. At each one of these meetings we can not only meet each other to build trust, but we can brainstorm what needs to happen to solve the voids that exist. This same person used an analogy that I found very useful, just has a fly fisherman has many rods, reels, and lines in their quiver for all the different types of water one would encounter, a mountain biker usually has different bikes, for different riding styles, to be used on different trails. The bikes and styles already exist, because the types of applicable trails exist somewhere. But, here we don't have all those types of trails. Illegal building will continue, IMHO, until we do! Again, I am not really trying to advocate it, just pointing it out.