Quantcast

Would you ride a trail or stunt that was built in a way that would.......

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
16,314
3,578
Nowhere Man!
Would you ride a trail or stunt that is obviously built irresponsibly or without regard to the enviroment? If a trail/stunt is built and it is not sustainable or causes damage to the ecosystem would you turn down that trail?

Say a trail runs through a wetland or a silted creek and many other riders before you turned down that trail would you turn down it also? If a stunt is built by nailing a spike into a live tree woud you ride that stunt? If a stunt was built using freshly cut live trees would you say damage done and ride it anyways? If a trail turned down a steep hill that suddenly ended or turned at the bottom and the only way you could ride it was by dragging your rear wheel and making a rut worse would you turn down that trail? If a climb required you to sidehill and churn up a fragile hillside would you still attempt to climb it?

I am not trying to start **** but it seems we can make a lot of excuses to justify our fun. We look like idiots when we excuse others irresponsiblities for the sake of our fun. Do you have the balls to do the right thing? Do you have the balls to answer any of these questions? Or will this post fade away because of the serious nature of it?

I'm done.

jdcamb
 

.:Jeenyus:.

Turbo Monkey
Feb 23, 2004
2,832
1
slc
Yes, I generally would. I would never build something like that, but if its already there and I fun trail, I suppose I would
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
30,146
2,980
Portland, OR
Some of the stunts and trails in Dallas we used to ride were hokey only because it was not authorized, so it was hastly built.

Since then, locals have gone to great lengths to have trails and stunts approved and maintainted to avoid these things.

But yes, i have riden some things that were considered wrong, but not often.
 

SXtrailrider

Turbo Monkey
Aug 27, 2005
1,189
0
if it was buit before i got thier then yes i wold ride the trail as long as i can't od any more damage than what is already done.
 
Difficult question. I guess I tend to ride it unless my riding is going to cause evident damage or otherwise make the situation worse. In particular, I often follow four wheeler trails even though I abhor the damage they cause.

I'll stop to undo any damage I reasonably can. An example would be some local switchbacks where people keep trying to establish straight downhill lines that would erode rapidly.

We're trying to get our local trail factions to become chapters of VMBA so we can hash these issues out in a semi-civilized fashion. The process remains imperfect, but it's better than clan warfare.

J
 

McGRP01

beer and bikes
Feb 6, 2003
7,797
0
Portland, OR
If I were with a group of people and they turned down a trail like the one(s) mentioned, then yes...I would follow. Realistically, who's going to say, "Sorry guys...I can't ride that kind of trial. I'll catch ya' later."

If I was riding solo, probably not.
 

pnj

Turbo Monkey till the fat lady sings
Aug 14, 2002
4,697
40
seattle
the dirt is not going to go anywhere. it's going to stay right here on earth. skid down the trail if you want. some guy with money is going to come along in a few years and put in condos in the same place anyways.
 

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
16,314
3,578
Nowhere Man!
The situation I refer to is in Virginia. It relates to an discussion I had with a friend that moved down there. He sent me pics of some "cool new trails" that his son and his friends built. He even points out that the stunts are really rickety and the "balls" it must take to ride it. He also points out the natural berm that was formed from the kids skidding down the trail. When I pointed out that it is not a good idea to let them just build stuff on public lands and to do so in a irresponsible way he basically told me to F off. The area in question is a civil war battlefield. Teach your children well.....
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
58,255
6,291
media blackout
If you don't mind, I'd like to try to put things in perspective.

For the last, oh, let's say 200 years we (the human species) has been raping our planet of natural resources. From the deforestation of all of North America in the 1800's to the ridiculously high rate of oil consumption of the last few decades that has not only depleted the resources, but our use of said product has been one of the primary causes of pollution (and thereby global warming). There is also an Iranian Sheik who has such an excessive amount of wealth that he has decided to BUILD (yes BUILD) a series of 300 private islands in the Persian Gulf. Yes folks, he is BUILDING ISLANDS for the super rich. Can you imagine what kind of havoc that is causing in the local ecosystem?? And he were are, moving around teensy piles of dirt, moving some logs around, and here and there putting a nail into a tree. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to say what we do is right or in any way, shape, or form justify what we do. But in the big scheme of things a bunch of piss ant mountain bikers moving some dirt, riding through a stream, or even nailing into a live tree isn't going to cause major ecological damage.
 

Uncle Jimmi

Chimp
Nov 17, 2005
79
0
So where do you draw the line?
If someone cuts down a live tree and makes paper do you write on it?
If someone sells a product that pollutes the environment when they make it and pollutes the environment when you use it, would you burn it in your car, truck or van?
If the some of the people you communicate and ride with cut trees, erode hillsides, or go ripping through a fresh water creek, would you still communicate / ride with them.

Make no mistake I am NOT for abusing the environment.
However I do not feel guilty for answering yes to your questions.
The reality is that even if all mountain bikers tried to ruin the earth, it wouldn’t make a dent.

It would give the sport a bad rep. and make it more difficult to have trails in the state parks, so have some respect for your sport, and your world, and do what you think is right.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,189
0
in a bear cave
jdcamb said:
Would you ride a trail or stunt that is obviously built irresponsibly or without regard to the enviroment?
Maybe, maybe not. Out of self preservation since i weigh so much i may not try a rickety ass stunt, but then again i've been known to disregard that.

jdcamb said:
If a trail/stunt is built and it is not sustainable or causes damage to the ecosystem would you turn down
It's really hard for me and i'm sure others as well, to fathom the impact when compared to an area being cleared out for urban sprawl, or clearcut. Now public lands it really depends on the purpose. Do mt. bikers have an agreement with land owners to be there and then what are the conditions.
So with that general question i would "lean" towards yes. However there are many intangibles and every situation is different. Really a pulse of the ride area, and the relationship between the riders and the land managers would be my primary focus in ultimately determining my decision.

jdcamb said:
Say a trail runs through a wetland or a silted creek and many other riders before you turned down that trail would you turn down it also?
Can you really demonstrate to me the impact a trail cut through an area like that would damage the environment. Most of the time on a true wetland trail builders would try to avoid a mushy area like that. Again what is the impact? Can the trail be re-routed to make less of an impact, and can simple measure be taken to reinforce the trail giving it less impact?

jdcamb said:
If a stunt is built by nailing a spike into a live tree woud you ride that stunt?
A spike tree does not generally hurt a live tree, but it sure looks like crap. That's definately a practice i would not endorse for more aesthetic reasons, and also knowing that in most cases that stunt will need constant maintenance, since it's anchored to a live object, and so is probably unsafe.

jdcamb said:
If a stunt was built using freshly cut live trees would you say damage done and ride it anyways?
i would simply not endorse this at all. Even if mt. bikers had free reign over an area (which probably doesn't exist legitamately anywhere besides a mt. bikers private property) there is always alternatives to that. Trail builders can bring wood in or use deadfall/blowdown wood for stunts. Killing live trees embodies laziness and any way you slice it poor trail building. Bad idea to disregard the natural settings which many of us are out riding for.

jdcamb said:
If a trail turned down a steep hill that suddenly ended or turned at the bottom and the only way you could ride it was by dragging your rear wheel and making a rut worse would you turn down that trail?
Sounds like a re-route is needed, or perhaps a water bar, and some skill to use the front brake. Mt. bike ruts are soooo insignificant to the moter dirt bike ruts i deal with on many mountain rides i do in the summer. We're talking knee/thigh high ruts, on federal multi use land.
i personally like steeps and chutes, and if the soil can handle it and work is done they can be an awesome part of a trail system.

jdcamb said:
If a climb required you to sidehill and churn up a fragile hillside would you still attempt to climb it?
Why not bench it, armor it, and make it a real trail....

jdcamb said:
I am not trying to start **** but it seems we can make a lot of excuses to justify our fun. We look like idiots when we excuse others irresponsiblities for the sake of our fun.
i don't agree with your premise simply because of the hardline stance you take on impact. Definately for many reasons there needs to be a governing body of trail workers working with land managers to accomodate all interested users. But i just don't think that problems that arise need to be approached as if they are the plague and people who ride them are zombies. No i think of them more as challenges.
Again you're reasoning can be more appropriate if an area is in threat of being closed down because of it. Then dialogue should be introduced, if people still don't listen and an area get's shut down, then a hard lesson will be learned.

jdcamb said:
Do you have the balls to do the right thing? Do you have the balls to answer any of these questions? Or will this post fade away because of the serious nature of it?
Yah well my mt. bike can beat up your mt. bike so there!!!;)

Your freind and son may learn the hard way it appears....
 

DHS

Friendly Neighborhood Pool Boy
Apr 23, 2002
5,100
0
Sand, CA
so are you also against the North Shore?

a lot of what you said is done there.
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,964
34
jdcamb said:
The situation I refer to is in Virginia. It relates to an discussion I had with a friend that moved down there. He sent me pics of some "cool new trails" that his son and his friends built. He even points out that the stunts are really rickety and the "balls" it must take to ride it. He also points out the natural berm that was formed from the kids skidding down the trail. When I pointed out that it is not a good idea to let them just build stuff on public lands and to do so in a irresponsible way he basically told me to F off. The area in question is a civil war battlefield. Teach your children well.....
Go there at night and tear it down. If he builds again, report his stupid ass.
 

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
16,314
3,578
Nowhere Man!
DHS said:
so are you also against the North Shore?

a lot of what you said is done there.

If to elevate your experience you ruin others. Then yes I would be against that. The North Shore has seen a a lot of trail closures lately and the authorities have been enforcing the laws and creating new ones to prevent the opening of new trails that aren't designed properly or harm the enviroment. Haven't most of the trail builders gone underground out there? Fear of prosecution has changed things bigtime.

Skookum said:
Can you really demonstrate to me the impact a trail cut through an area like that would damage the environment. Most of the time on a true wetland trail builders would try to avoid a mushy area like that. Again what is the impact? Can the trail be re-routed to make less of an impact, and can simple measure be taken to reinforce the trail giving it less impact?
No can do. However wetlands here in NY are rapidly disappearing. Drastic measures need to be taken to protect them from us. If your a fisherman the silting of a creek or stream can oxygenate a stream and kill fish. It can also penetrate/expose the claybed and alter a waterway and change the water table for an area in a bad way (there can be a waterway in the bedrock flowing under a stream, if you increase the volume of that waterway and it can't diffuse it....). Basically you can potentially create a situation where you could damge property down stream or in the area. How would you feel if your basement started flooding because someone other then mother nature prematurely started the erosion process upstream?


Skookum said:
A spike tree does not generally hurt a live tree, but it sure looks like crap. That's definately a practice i would not endorse for more aesthetic reasons, and also knowing that in most cases that stunt will need constant maintenance, since it's anchored to a live object, and so is probably unsafe.
Certain trees can be exposed to disease from the penetration of the bark. Sure a pine or a maple can recover from a spike. But how about a young ash or elm that are already very prone to disease? A spike will kill a chesnut or tulip tree. Does some grom stunt builder differentiate?

H8R said:
Go there at night and tear it down. If he builds again, report his stupid ass.
This in my experience leads to escalation. If you tear it down. They will just rebuild in a bigger scale. Many more folks are willing to do the wrong thing then the right in my experience.

Now these folks have the right idea. http://www.freeridepark.com/index.html
I have not been down nor do I think I am welcome. But it seems from concept how things should be done. Now if we could only get the XC guys to do the same.

On my ride to today I was confronted by a climb on steep and eroded hill. For the first time I walked up it instead of riding it. As challenging and fun as it used to be. I need to do the right thing. Everyone else rode it. I said nothing. You can do what you want. I am not the trail police. I am sure if I pointed out that climbing that hill is making the erosion of it worse I would have been laughed at.
 

jonKranked

Press Button, Receive Stupid
Nov 10, 2005
58,255
6,291
media blackout
attn: jdcamb:

do you not live in a house/apartment on land that used to be occupied by wilderness? do you not abide in a house constructed of natural resources (wood, brick, etc)? Do you not consume products produced from resources such as trees, water, and plants grown in the dirt?

Pot. Kettle. Black.
 
J

JRB

Guest
jonKranked said:
attn: jdcamb:

do you not live in a house/apartment on land that used to be occupied by wilderness? do you not abide in a house constructed of natural resources (wood, brick, etc)? Do you not consume products produced from resources such as trees, water, and plants grown in the dirt?

Pot. Kettle. Black.
I think the point is that there is a difference between necessity and entertainment. Apparently none of us live in huts built of fallen trees and broken limbs. I won't argue the point here, but disregard for the trails we love is lame. Most often times, disregard is the wrong approach to anything. :think:
 

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
16,314
3,578
Nowhere Man!
Mtbkngrl said:
Just visit the Land's website(linky on Echo's profile)...read the goal of The Land....All nice and good and proper...But it's alot of the same guys that toiled over The Land all summer that have decided to start illegally building in the county parks again....The Land Underground.

I'm sure my post will continue to get deleted by Echo, because he has taken personal offense to what I have disclosed for some "unknown" reason..

Most people could give a sh#t about the environment and can't see the big picture JDCamb...Tryon is getting trashed, not just by bikers, but by alot of different outside influences. So I guess the rationale is to continue trashing it..."Hey who uses it anyway."
If we all tried to do even little things on a daily basis to make things better, think of how the world would change.
I have checked out the new stuff in Tryon. Actually it was Echo who made me aware of it. It seems to be on a small scale and mostly on town of Brighton property. If they get caught the town will prosecute as I found out last year. The big thing that they have a problem with is alteration of Boundary creek (the gully in the southend) and the killing of live trees. I find this funny as the town is the worst offender of altering the creek. Anyone caught will be made an example of. Nothing I saw in there was of any consequence and basically uses parts of the dead stunts. Most of it is off the trails or next to it. The gap over the wash that empties into the gully is just plain stupid. The towering old stunt on the northside of the south end seems to have been repaired and then destroyed and not by me or anyone I know. No new holes have been dug or trees cut down so I could care less what they do in there (well I care but am not going to do anything about it).

The paintball kids however have made some barricades, torn down a bridge, and have done some damage to the northside. The little paintballs are everywhere. The homeless encampment was torn down and just left there (pigs). I suppose the kids will use it as firewood for thier parties. There is also broken glass everywhere. F'n pigs.

However for those that care the far north is back online. The ATV guy was evicted from his house. The Irondeqouit Police seems to have taken quite an interest in him after our little ordeal with him:devil:. The brush piles have been cleared, the climb is back online, and I am sure the downed trees on the downhill trail will eventually be removed. The folks from the nieghborhood use it for dog walking. The town of Irondeqouit is aware of the trails and has no problem with them. Someone has even repaired Jesus and torn down the gate at the top of the hill blocking the trail by the expressway. The cables across the trails have also disappered. Currently a hunter has a treestand in there. He has permission to be in there so be cool and give him room.

I have been made aware of other stuff being built in other parks in the county. As I stated to them I don't know who is doing it, and I am going to do nothing about it. I would rather just ride.

I will state this. If anything is built in the Ellison Wetlands (Froggys and the Sweet16). I will have a problem with that and deal with them accordingly. We all know what that means:sneaky:.

This post is not about Tryon so I will not respond to anything refering to our situation there. PM me regarding local crap please.

jdcamb
 

ito

Mr. Schwinn Effing Armstrong
Oct 3, 2003
1,709
0
Avoiding the nine to five
DHS said:
so are you also against the North Shore?

a lot of what you said is done there.
Most North Shore trails these days are in some way approved. The builders are well known and publically acknowledged. For the most part they build from fallen trees and do not nail into life trees. Stunts are designed to go over or around sensitive areas to remove impact from the trail. So no, a lot of what he mentioned is not done there

[URL="http://www.nsmba.bc.ca[/URL]
Check this site out for more information

I think the problem lies in the trail builders and people who build in a way that is not safe or sustainable.

Unfortunately I have a feeling that like the majority of people, mountain bikers aren't aware of the impact they have. Unless it is raining or the trails are really badly built it is hard to see a change in the trail after only one person has ridden it, but have a few hundred down the trail and see what happens. Like the rest of society mountain bikers don't like being inconvenienced if it interferes with their sport and involves them being called irresponsible.

Also, saying that just because we live in a house or drive a car is justification for destroying a trail, is crap. Even if you have no environmental concerns you should realize that a poorly built, unsustainable trail is not only dangerous to yourself, but no good in the long run as it will be destroyed after a short period of time. That means no more trail for you and more work to do to make another trail to replace it. Like Loco said, disregarding something is a great way to lose it.

I leave my room a mess, but that doesn't mean I need to go trash someone elses room as well. Take a little responsibility for your own actions for once.

I'm lucky enough that in Santa Barbara there is a good resource of very well built trails. As long as we don't ride during or too soon after the rain things are fine. The trails that have been built in the past few years have borrowed from existing trails and been built with the right tools and by people who knew how to build them. We've also stayed away from the wooden stunt idea as it really doesn't work with the local environment.

Good post Jdcamb

The Ito
 

GumbaFish

Turbo Monkey
Oct 5, 2004
1,747
0
Rochester N.Y.
The problem is that you can not easily build well thought out and sustainable trails in areas where it is illegal to ride mountain bikes. I don't exactly understand why it is illegal to ride in monroe county, or who all of the complaints come from. Whenever I encounter a hiker or dog walker I always have a nice exchange and we are both just people trying to enjoy a nice day. To me it is much like the skaters, if you give us a place to build legally then we can really take the time to bench trails etc to make sure they are done right. Example dryer road, those guys did a great job in there to make a legal place to ride with some cool interesting trails open to all kinds of use not just mountain biking. I do not know why the land freeride park is brought into this, this is private property not in rochester and a place for us to build and by Jdcamb's previous post he implies he is talking about trails not eve in new york.
 

Spitfired

Monkey
Jun 18, 2004
489
0
Rochester, NY
jdcamb said:
I will state this. If anything is built in the Ellison Wetlands (Froggys and the Sweet16). I will have a problem with that and deal with them accordingly. We all know what that means:sneaky:.

jdcamb
I believe you mean "the wet dream"
 

Liam

Chimp
Jun 16, 2004
21
0
G-San Daegu, SK
I'll stop riding trails in a way that might cause a limitted amount of damage as soon as logging companies and develpers stop knocking down all the trees and building houses in their places. I'm sure a slidy rear tire doesn't quite compare to a catapillar track. Or islands...
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,635
26
behind the viewfinder
Liam said:
I'll stop riding trails in a way that might cause a limitted amount of damage as soon as logging companies and develpers stop knocking down all the trees and building houses in their places. I'm sure a slidy rear tire doesn't quite compare to a catapillar track. Or islands...
i get the DISTINCT feeling that a lot of people have a hard time discerning the difference between PRIVATE property, PUBLIC property and their OWN property.
 

Roasted

Turbo Monkey
Jul 4, 2002
1,491
0
Whistler, BC
North shore trails are not being closed 'that' often. There were a few last year but that was purely because of the danger level, not the location of where they were built. It was mostly a political push that has been squashed. The immediate threat has left the building thanks to nsmba and responsible builders. Cudos to an incredible amount of people coming together and working to keep open most of the trails and getting permission to continue building. There were a couple of other closures, that were for the exact thing you are talking about, environmental responsibility. Rebuilding damaged sections and rerouting the trail around heavily damaged areas. As far as I know, those classics (10 to 20 year old trails) have been reopened. :)

North shore came about partially because of the terrain and how wet it was which related directly to how much damage bikers were doing. The 'elevated' the trail to stop the roots and drainage systems from getting damaged. If the trail is built properly it would work with the environment around it to help drainage and not damage the trees.

Now specifically to your question. In my experience a properly built trail for the environment is also well built, so I would ride it, one that is put up half assed without concern, also doesn't have much concern for rider safety. I don't trust stunts built by amateurs, and they are usually easy to see. Beyond that I know the builders in town and the newer trails are all built well and responsibly, they are also maintained and redirected at the first sign of a problem. So I have no issues. I have even closed off workarounds to stop from obvious problems occuring. If the riders and builders are responsible good trails can be made while also being concerned for the environment.

Great post. I think about the build and how it is affecting the environment almost every ride. I take note of drainage runs and whats happening to the "off" trail. Regardless of how fun the trail is, I definately avoid trails the can have a lasting affect on the environment. We obviously leave a footprint, it might as well be small :)
 

HypNoTic

Man Whore
Aug 3, 2004
144
0
Montreal, Qc
Disclaimer: I'm an IMBA representative and president of the local bike advocacy group (adsvmq.org).

Would you ride a trail or stunt that is obviously built irresponsibly or without regard to the enviroment?
Ride until we find something to fix. Fix it than continue. Yeah, all the time.

If a trail/stunt is built and it is not sustainable or causes damage to the ecosystem would you turn down that trail?
Yes, I would actually go 1 notch further than that.

We actually destroyed a very badly built "Shore style" stunt last weekend. Kids built something with plywood directly nailed to live tree and didnt manage to build a landing to their drop. It was built without permission from the land owner and dangerous to the other trails users. The chain-saw fixed this issue. We will talk to the parents to the kids and invite them to a trail maintenance day where we build in a much cleaner way.

Say a trail runs through a wetland or a silted creek and many other riders before you turned down that trail would you turn down it also?
Rock armoring and bridges are magic.

If a stunt is built by nailing a spike into a live tree woud you ride that stunt?
No. See comment higher.

If a stunt was built using freshly cut live trees would you say damage done and ride it anyways?
Most of the time, the stunt can be re-arranged to reduce the impact of the environment.

If a trail turned down a steep hill that suddenly ended or turned at the bottom and the only way you could ride it was by dragging your rear wheel and making a rut worse would you turn down that trail?
I'd build a nice berm with proper signage uphill to warn riders of the stunt, and most likely, build a chicken-pass aside.

If a climb required you to sidehill and churn up a fragile hillside would you still attempt to climb it?
I would armor it before going uphill.

Again, this is more about me and few friends but we're starting to get more peoples aware of the facts that trails NEEDS maintenance. The land itself need management in case the trails is not properly maintained (close the trail, build a new line with proper technique). But most of all, get the riders to give back to the trails they love to ride.