Quantcast

This Little Shit

Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2017/08/31/singletrack-trails-in-far-north-spell-high-speed-collisions-with-bears/

Always tries to throw up the same arguments and cock-block our trail development. For some time, we've been working on a new addition to the trails, which would expand the existing route and make some of the existing trails into one-way trails to reduce conflicts, as well as adding a few directional downhill trails.

New trails would be built in a small parcel just north of the existing Hillside STA trails, http://www.singletrackadvocates.org/our-trails/ Contary to what little shit claims, these trails are not near salmon streams, unless salmon have gained the ability to swim several hundred feet dry hills through the forest. There are some trails near salmon streams here and really all over Alaska, but no one is building trails danger-close to streams anymore and these are essentially "way up in the hills", removed from the streams where the brown bears congregate.

The approvals have done through all sorts of hoops already, city parks and rec, the far-north park, agreement with the hilltop ski hill, nordic trails association, etc. This little shit always brings up the issue that bears are going to maul bikers and that biking is so dangerous that no trails should ever be built. He writes for the newspaper and evidently he's also the "Anchorage Watershed and Natural Resources Advisory Commission", which makes this a stunning piece of journalistic integrity.
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
56,596
22,705
Sleazattle
There is a local rep back in VA that tries to prevent bike access because riders "will pick all the flowers"

WTF
 
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,149
13,358
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
His last name looks like it's pronounced 'snot'


18 whole times in the history of mountainbiking in bear country huh? That's pretty good odds. I see bears every week, they can hear me. And you're not going fast unless you can see ahead.....in which case......

People find weird crosses to die on.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
SkaredShtles said:
Can't you just go to a public meeting that he's in and tell him to fuck right the fuck off?
Click to expand...
He doesn't show up to the public meetings, in fact, at the Parks and Rec meeting, we had a few hundred supporters of building the new trails, and one irate lady that complained and then slammed the door walking out in the middle of the meeting, which was quite funny. The directors base it on what's best for the parks and what meets the needs of the plans they have set forth, and then they take public comments, which is what we were doing there.

This guy is a classic "you can't have fun because I don't like it!" asshole. Reeks of some old angry guy. He even says over and over in the comments that he's a "mountain biker", but that you would probably never run into him on the trails. He's just being a douche for the sake of being a douche.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
Pesqueeb said:
Is this twit also concerned about cyclists hitting moose? A moose once bit my sister.
Click to expand...
Moose are no joke, but I'm not aware of any moose trampling riders this year. A couple hikers got trampled last year when they took a few seconds to look up at an airplane. We see moose on almost every ride, often multiple moose on one ride. It's one hell of a scary world out there I tell you.

This is our Mike Vandeman.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
SkaredShtles said:
You can't speak his name like that...

:tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil::panic::panic::panic::panic::panic:
Click to expand...
The other issue is that in the existing trails in the area, our trailsigns keep going missing. We keep putting up new signs, someone is stealing them within a day or so.
 
Serial Midget

Serial Midget

Al Bundy
Jun 25, 2002
13,053
1,897
Fort of Rio Grande
I stopped reading here: "even a small bird that is unable to maneuver out of the way." I am pretty sure the next paragraph expressed concern for ants who may have difficulty crossing the trail safely.
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
89,660
27,843
media blackout
Serial Midget said:
I stopped reading here: "even a small bird that is unable to maneuver out of the way." I am pretty sure the next paragraph expressed concern for ants who may have difficulty crossing the trail safely.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming I made the right decision not to read the article.

I've had enough of this shit. When I lived in socal there was a lady trying to get bikes banned who claimed she saw tire marks on a dead baby rabbit. She completely lost her mind when someone pointed out it was an invasive species so if the accusation were true, it was actually helping the local ecosystem.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
Kevin said:
How hard can it be to track this guy down?
Click to expand...
And do what exactly? If he's the guy yanking the signs out, that will soon be revealed. Otherwise, it's not a good idea to place yourself in the situation of assault. Guys like this are irrational, but also not stupid, they use that kind of behavior against us. Let him be the perpetrator.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
Kevin said:
Put his photo on a flyer and spread them all over town with additional info.
See how big of a bitch he is when its not anonymous anymore...
Click to expand...
He isn't anonymous, read the article. Also, it may just be some kids or nature-lovers ripping the signs out, there's no association there, all we know are that signs are being ripped out from the place he's complaining about. Then, if it turns out to be him or some friends he's closely associated with, we may have something, but that's not where we are right now. Where we are right now is this guy blocks all attempts to expand mountain biking around the city. That is why he is a piece of shit.
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
This is what I replied to him with, if anyone cares to read (long, maybe interesting, I dunno):

New singletrack trails spell sudden encounters with bears

Last week the Municipality of Anchorage's planning director, Hal Hart, gave a thumb's up to several singletrack bike trails planned in Far North Bicentennial Park. The trails had received mixed reviews from two municipal advisory commissions.

Care to elaborate? I went to one of those two meetings and the support was overwhelming, and by overwhelming, I mean like 200 to 1. You must not have been there, so I guess it's fair for you to just make up whatever you want about it?
​
Last April the Anchorage Parks and Recreation Commission approved an idea conceived by Singletrack Advocates, a local nonprofit, to build 6 to 8 miles of singletrack trails in the park. Construction was to start this summer.

Singletrack trails are skinny mountain bike trails, approximately the width of the bike. Anchorage has more than 76 miles of designated mountain bike trails, according to Singletrack Advocates' website. At least 24 miles have been designed specifically for singletrack users.

Mountain bike trails involve certain things, such as mountains, and singletrack. Once it's not singletrack, it's some kind of path or double-track ATV/road. Many mountain bikers seek out the singletrack trails, because this is the mountain biking experience. This is what you get when you go out on the Kenai Peninsula and other places. I'm not sure how much you've traveled, but in places down South, they call forest roads, well, forest roads, even if they are not open to vehicles. So Campbell Tract and a few other places have some forest roads, but few legitamate trails. We could even get into the fact that many of these are in swamp areas and riding through them damages them. Wouldn't it be nice to have options that are designed correctly so even the people that don't really care won't damage the surfaces by hiking and biking? Much of the time, the "old" trails are old paths that have been adopted or trails that were built before much was really understood about erosion and trail placement. I have helped with some of the reroutes in the Chugach Park and I can tell you that no new trail would ever be built like many of the existing ones, no one wants to walk/ride through a swamp. Of course, the public tends to hack their own trails in places, whether we are talking about hiking trails, ski trails, bike trails, and any other mode of transportation in the wilderness. One of the goals with the new project was to give some more skills options to the riding, in addition to making the new and some existing trails one-way, to increase safety to all user groups. Rather than blazing down the Dome trail or some other semi-legal downhill trail, the new trails would fulfill some of the allure in a more controlled environment, with more grade-reversals, better sight-lines, better signage for safety, designated uphill and downhill, and so on.
​
The sport is fast-growing and fast-paced. Most of the videos posted on the internet by singletrack enthusiasts demonstrate just how fast and precarious the sport can be. The president of Singletrack Advocates, Lee Bolling, described riding on a singletrack trail as "like having your own personal roller coaster."

For some people, but now you are painting a broad brush and trying to lump every trail user into your perception. Your stereotype would hold up on the advanced trails of Alyeska, but we are not there. Yesterday, I rode Hillside STA twice and I noticed just many people over 50 than under, all out there having fun. You may be referring to situations where people post videos on the trails, having fun. You should know that just because someone posts a video of the trail doesn't mean everyone is riding like that. One thing about trails that have the higher skill levels, they also tend to have the most experienced and thoughtful riders on them. I see many more people out on the forest roads without helmets, bells, bear spray, bikes in good working order, and so on. Why? It's simple, to ride the higher skill trails or just climb the steeper hills you have to have more than just a passing interest in the sport. The trail expansion would be somewhat "more of the same" in the sense that you have to climb up to go down, which filters out some of the lesser equipped/prepared riders. Modern mountain bike brakes can also stop quite fast. How do you qualify your perception of "fast and precarious"? Are you implying that we are leaving our ability to stop to chance? (precarious). Are all roller-coasters high speed-upside-down devices? Of course not. In fact, roller-coasters have grade-reversals, just like the STA trails. I'm not sure if you've ever been on these trails, but they have "ups and downs" that prevent you from going crazy fast in a straight line. Mountain bike gearing can go to around 35-40mph with no problem, but you'll never get anywhere near that fast on these trails, because they are designed to prevent it.
​
[When cyclists collide with bears]

Much faster than traditional trail activities like hiking, running and horseback riding, navigating a singletrack trail offers the distinct possibility of running into something: a dirt berm, a tree or even a small bird that is unable to maneuver out of the way.

How fast can a horse run? How much do horses weigh? Do horses ever spook due to animals and other trail users? The responsibility of the trail users rests on themselves. Just like your bike, if you bring a horse or bike to the trail, you must use it correctly and not endanger other trail users due to a lack of training. Riding a horse offers a distinct possibility of being thrown or otherwise injured. The difference here is that you chose to single out mountain bikes due to your bias against this particular group. More than half of the time, a rider is climbing, which is roughly the same to slower than running up the trail. Do the mountain bikers want to run into each other? Of course not. You make it sound as if it's simply exceptional chance that we go out and ride day after day successfully. If you are hiking, you may spiral-fracture your ankle, like my Mother did. You may run into a branch at night, like I did once. The world is not perfectly safe, but these activities get us out, exercising and experiencing nature.
​
The risk is part of the thrill. I can't think of any other sport that could have coined the term "bark tattoo."

You may have been watching too many Mountain Dew commercials. Not everyone is out there to ride fast or jump. If it's horseback riding, you might get a horse-shoe tattoo (and it rhymes too!). Why do you even go outside? Is there risk in it? Is there risk in any outdoor activity? Absolutely. So it's about how we mitigate the risk, with grade reversals, constraining the riders to specific areas/trails, offering skills/advanced trails that are better built/designed that will prevent them from seeking out the same on un-designated or illegally built trails, and so on. For some reason, you seem to be stuck on the idea that mountain bikers can not mitigate their risks, whether from bears or just riding in general.
​
I'm not kidding about bird strikes. In a video posted on Singletrack Advocates' website, the rider called it a "bird punch."

This isn't worth discussing too far. I haven't watched this video, but if it's referring to a grouse, I've had them run into me just while hiking. Otherwise, a bird strike would be an incredibly rare event. Possible, but incredibly rare. It would be interesting to see on video, as it is such an incredibly rare event. Seriously, do you believe this is something that is happening at any other frequency than "exceptionally rare"?
​
Dueling commissions

The Parks and Recreation Commission and municipal Department of Parks and Recreation are big fans of singletrack trails because the users are well organized and pay for the trails themselves.

And they organize and set up trail-work days, clear dead-fall across the trails, clear brush close to the trail to ensure the trails stay safe, set up trail signs, etc. It's not just these things, but also the design of the trails, if advanced features are included, ride-arounds are offered, sight-lines are preserved, grade-reversals are used, etc. So from a land management point of view, the group mitigates many of the possible concerns that come from allowing the building of trails and avoids many of the design-disasters of previous older trails. ​

It wasn't until after the parks and recreation commission had approved the idea that anyone thought to ask the Anchorage Watershed and Natural Resources Advisory Commission what it thought about the trail proposal. In this case, the meddlesome "anyone" was me. I'm a duly appointed member of the commission.

It sounds like you are personally upset about this. I followed the process of this trail project and many steps that it had to go through, from community meetings held at schools to the presentation to the Municipality and others. STA tried to go through all of the required steps to get the trails built. There was never any discussion about how to circumvent this or any other requirement. Looking at the commission's own documents, it was enacted in 2008, the same year the first trails were built by STA at the Hilltop location.
​
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
Both municipal commissions are composed of volunteers who are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Assembly. Like many other public commissions, their job is to give free advice on issues within their areas of expertise.

Is your area of expertise unfounded perceptions about mountain bikers and stereotyping? Yes, that's a pretty crass statement on my part, but based on your baseless statements above and below.​

The two commissions are aptly named, and they don't always see eye-to-eye on trail proposals. Whereas the parks and recreation commission tends to look at trails from a purely recreational perspective, the watershed and natural resources commission considers how a new or improved trail might affect interactions between trail users and wildlife. By wildlife, I mean primarily bears and moose.

Having attended the Parks and Recreation meeting, this is not true. They designated specific areas of land as high-use and low-use, to allow future development to maintain a balance of natural resources and recreation. The STA proposal was in an area that was previously designated as high-use. ​

After reviewing the proposal, the watershed and natural resources commissioners unanimously recommended against building two of the advanced downhill segments, those located closest to the South Fork of Campbell Creek. Singletrack Advocates revisited the plan and removed one.

I've investigated interactions between cyclists and bears, and it's not a pretty picture. Most bear-related injuries to cyclists have occurred in the past two decades. Although the odds of a cyclist being injured by a bear are very small, biking on singletrack trails appears to be riskier than hiking in bear country.

If the odds of being injured by a bear while biking are very small, then why are you trying to paint this huge negative connotation? Every year, in Anchorage, more people are injured and mauled by bears while hiking. The bottom line is that you have no data to support your claim that new singletrack trails will mean more injuries and maulings. Since you've investigated this, you must know it to be true.
​
[Opinion: No more singletrack trails in parks, please]

Bikes vs. bears

Cyclists often ignore the recommendations of bear-safety experts to travel in a group and carry bear spray. Bikes also tend to "outrun" the sounds they make, which means a bear or moose has precious little time to react when a bicycle comes barreling around a corner or over a rise.

Hikers and runners and all other user groups will often ignore the recommendations of bear-safety experts. How about the kid killed up on Bird Ridge this year? I'm a mountain biker and I wouldn't go up there with the basic necessities for traveling in the backcountry. Why this push to paint mountain bikers as outlaws running contrary to every known law and good practice? We aren't carrying around babies and nitroglycerin for heaven's sake. If you are going to make the claim that you are more likely to get injured by a bear on a bike, then we need that data, before you make claims. And then what of it? Do you claim that there is no way to mitigate it? What ways have you studied? We could systematically make the same claims you are making for every single mode of backcountry travel. Skiers get squished by a moose. Runners are mauled by a bear. Being "bear-aware" means traveling with a bell and making noise as far as alerting the bears, which is again even more common on trails that are physically more challenging, just due to "weeding-out" the less serious users. Then there are sight-lines that are meant to be reasonable and grade-reversals to mitigate speed and other issues.
​
Some of the singletrack trails proposed in Bicentennial Park — those nearest the creek — are particularly troublesome. Their most attractive feature seems to be the opportunity to ride fast downhill through the woods. Unfortunately, the steep downhill runs would bisect the corridor used by local brown bears to move between Chugach State Park, where most den and raise their cubs, to the salmon spawning grounds in Bicentennial Park where the bears congregate to feed in late summer and fall.

The proposal I've seen was encompassed within the existing Spencer Loop on the North side. Looking at the Northern-most portion of the loop and starting from the West, it's relatively flat until it reaches the main terrain relief, about halfway up to the Eastern-most portion. Compared to the Spencer Loop, the proposed STA trails would be even further South. In other comments, you compared the danger of Rover's Run trail, however, this is a totally false comparison, as Rover's Run goes alongside Campbell Creek with direct access to the creek the entire time. To put it bluntly, Rover's Run is "danger close" to the Creek. So we, as responsible trail users, pay attention to bear sightings, reports and the recommendations of the park and we simply don't ride it at certain times of the year. That's a pretty easy mitigation strategy. Wildlife corridors are the first thing you've actually said in this entire article that has any credibility. These are important and should be considered, however, data should be used, not just one's feelings. How many bear dens are up there the last time they were counted? How does this compare with the other areas? Do more bear dens mean more negative encounters? Is it significantly more density than other areas where trails exist? If this is just something that you feel, that there are more dens up there than scattered in lower areas of FNBP or across the creek, then you need to admit you have no data.
​
Brown bears use the wooded corridor between Stuckagain Heights and Prospect Heights to avoid meeting humans. Imagine their surprise when they encounter new trails bristling with fast-moving recreationists right in their path. Bears don't like surprises.

This is a bit puzzling, as there is a large Gorge running right in the middle of this corridor you are talking about. I would wager this is too steep for even a bear, as there is a lot of exposed rock towards the bottom and the terrain relief is so steep that most vegetation won't cling. So the bear's options would be to go up and around, as in towards Wolverine Bowl, or down the creek further towards the bridge that connects to North Bivouac. Given that the STA proposal above the Spencer Loop is bounded by the Gorge on the North, it's definitely not valid that the bears will be using this portion to transit North/South. Since you conveniently left out the Gorge, one is left to wonder how the routes East and West of this are used by the bears and to what extent. In any case, we ride with bells because bears don't like surprises.
​
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
This summer's fatal bear attacks in Alaska notwithstanding, black bears are not normally as dangerous as brown bears. However, my research suggests that bikers appear to be much more likely to be attacked by black bears than hikers. Fast-moving bikes may trigger a black bear's chase reflex. Because Anchorage has many more black bears than brown bears, this compounds the risk to cyclists.

Except this is not supported by data:

The data that Sinnott would never cite is from his own 2015 study of bear maulings by user group (which is more current than the 2002 and 2008 data which he often cites and that most conveniently supports his opinion. In Sinnott's 2015 study of one particular area of FNBP, he found that people on foot accounted for 15% of trail users. Bikers were 69% and equestrians were 14%. Yet the 15% who were pedestrian accounted for 87% of the bear maulings. (13 were pedestrian; 2 were bikers.) He offers no explanation for this and persists in stating that bikers are the most likely to be mauled by a bear.

Not only that, but failing to provide any specifics or your report, this once again just back to how you emotionally feel about mountain bikers. Anyone who has been living up here for the last few years knows that more hikers and runners get mauled by bears each year. You can make a study and publish it if you like, but it'll show the same as above. Because bikers are not being mauled at greater rates than other user groups, and especially because they constitute such large numbers of the user group, the risk to cyclists is far lower than other user groups, completely contrary to the point you are trying to make here.​

There's also the possibility of literally running into a bear. I've found four instances in North America of cyclists running into bears while traveling at a high speed. It's the nature of the sport; bikers also run into hikers and other cyclists on singletrack trails. The trails are signed for one-way travel, which helps minimize collisions with humans, but not wildlife.

Or a moose. Thank you for recognizing the safety aspect of the one-way trails. In Arizona and Northern California, it was, deer, lions and black bears. The thing is, the sport isn't all about high-speed, no matter how many times you claim. Again, there are many users on any given day that are not going that fast, possibly why your research indicates that cyclists as a group are at far less risk of a bear mauling.
​
The odds of being injured riding fast on a singletrack trail are higher than the likelihood of encountering a bear. The point is not to protect cyclists from themselves. Instead, we hoped to protect bears from the inevitable knee-jerk calls for their eradication — in that park or in the municipality.

If this is truly your concern, why not move away, then one less person that would be living in the municipality with wildlife? Do you have examples of the mountain bikers (this is the group we are talking about) calling for the eradication of wildlife? You do realize that wildlife encounters are part of the reason we ride? Same reason most anyone goes into woods.
​
I once participated in a radio talk show where some guy called in to pose the universal solipsistic question, "What are bears good for?" He wholeheartedly believed that bears should be eliminated, period. Of course, the question couldn't be answered to his satisfaction.

What data do you have to prove this has anything to do with mountain bikers?
​
Every time someone is attacked or injured by a bear in Alaska, the proportion of gun-toting hikers and bikers increases and, not surprisingly, the number of bears shot "in defense of life or property" — on trails or in towns — usually spikes.

Do you have any good data on this? Im not talking about the animal that attacked, as you and I know that they are often put down. Can you show me the stats and then show me that this somehow relates to mountain bikers as a group? Once again, this just goes to your emotional feelings that mountain bikers are a bunch of gun-toting outlaws. I'd say for about every 500-1000 riders I encounter, I might see one with a gun. One big reason is that any effective weapon for a bear is heavy. Another reason is that as you have stated, bears can move fast. The kind of attack where you'd need a gun or bear spray can often be so fast you won't be able to get to it in time. Whatever it is, it needs to be quickly accessible. Then, if your buddy is being mauled, shooting rounds wildly at both of them is probably not going to be a good idea, but bear spray won't kill your friend, and it may save them, as was the case recently in Anchorage. If there is more time, on a bike, you can often just turn around and go the other way.
​
[Mirror Lake singletrack provides new mountain-biking destination near Chugiak and Eagle River]

Warning signs?

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game wrote the municipality a letter in June noting that "the style of riding promoted by trails with limited sight lines, fast descents, and tight curves is counter to advice for traveling in bear habitat, particularly in areas with seasonal high bear densities." The letter, signed by Dave Battle, the Anchorage area biologist, and Sean Farley, the region's bear expert, advised that "increased trail density and use will increase the likelihood of bicyclist-bear encounters" in Bicentennial Park.

Fair enough. But is it significant to affect the wildlife and cause attacks? That seems to be the question and with the stats from your report, cyclists are far less likely to be mauled than hikers. We also take steps to mitigate this risk, groups, bells, avoiding areas when not recommended, etc.
​
Moose also pose hazards to cyclists on mountain bike trails. After singletrack trails were built in Kincaid Park, a spate of moose attacks occurred. Singletrack Advocates and others now caution cyclists to avoid or be especially alert on those trails in early summer when moose calves are young and cows are particularly aggressive.

Moose also pose hazards to every user group in the woods. Is it up to STA to educate users on all of the incracacies of being in the woods? In any case, you are admitting here that STA can take steps to mitigate risks.
​
The watershed and natural resources commission noted its long-standing concern about singletrack trails in bear country; however, it didn't object to those proposed farthest from the creek.

Hart, the municipality's planning director, didn't accept the advice of the watershed and natural resources commission to forgo building singletrack trails in an area with seasonally high bear densities. Instead, in approving the trails, he noted "Alaskans live in bear country and with this recognition comes the individual responsibility to determine if the inherent risk is acceptable." He's asked Singletrack Advocates to "collaborate" with the parks department and state Department of Fish and Game "to develop and place appropriate signage."

Just like you pointed out above, there are steps that can be taken to mitigate the risk.

Let's hope both bikers and bears take those signs seriously.

No one expects bears to read signs. We expect them to be wild. Expecting anything else would be foolish.
 
JohnE

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
13,566
2,214
Front Range, dude...
Pesqueeb said:
Is this twit also concerned about cyclists hitting moose? A moose once bit my sister.
Click to expand...
When I lived in Anchorage a friend of mine hit a moose during an XC ski race in Kincaid Park. Downhill, in full tuck, head down, saw moose at last instant and ran right into her ribcage. Dont know who was more shaken up, but my friend (An aspiring Olympian...) spent a week in hospital...
 
Jm_

Jm_

sled dog's bollocks
Jan 14, 2002
20,599
11,101
AK
JohnE said:
When I lived in Anchorage a friend of mine hit a moose during an XC ski race in Kincaid Park. Downhill, in full tuck, head down, saw moose at last instant and ran right into her ribcage. Dont know who was more shaken up, but my friend (An aspiring Olympian...) spent a week in hospital...
Click to expand...
It's likely better to run into a moose that way, it gives the moose less chance to react aggressively when it's sudden and not "eyeing" you as you get closer. But yeah, they'll just be camped out on the trails and when you show up, they get pissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom