illegal trail riding

[agabriel]

It seems like we talk about illegal trails here often, I'm curious if anyone has checked out this months "Mountain Bike" mag (the one that is packaged with Bicycling) and has an opinion about the points made. They have both points of view pretty well summarized on page 25.

Anthony

[Chris_T]

Narc?

-C

[Slider]

C'mon, lighten up you guys. A few formatting problems are all we're talking about here. Agabriel - you've made some interesting posts - keep 'em up!

Slider

[agabriel]

Err, I wasn't even playing with the formatting :(...

Did any of you check out the article?

EDIT: If you goto advanced edit mode the formatting comes out a bit odd...

Anthony

[Husqvarna]

I saw the article and breezed it, but it seems like it was aimed at riding trails that are closed to mountain biking, but not about "unsanctioned" trails.
So i believe the article was about "illegal riding" not "illegal trails". My two cents; at provided there are enough trails, one should not have to ride trails closed to biking. If there aren't enough trails open to biking in your area, then get off your butt and get involved in your local Mountain bike advocacy group and do something about it. Riding a closed trail will only force land managers to take more extreme measures to keep bikes out. For example; closing the area completely to mountain bikes.

[Slider]

I think the degree of sensitivity varies from place to place. I wouldn't push it in places like the Fells, but there are some really remote trails here in CT that are essentially unused. There isn't enough bike traffic to affect them, and hikers are few and far between. I don't make it policy to search them out, but I don't religiously avoid them either.

Slider

[Husqvarna]

Fortunately for us MTBers in southern new england, most other trail user groups don't make much use of there local trails.

Hikers are of the mindset that if its not covered by an AMC Guidebook, its not a worthwhile trail experience. So the majority of them tend to be attracted to areas like the Whites, the Greens, Acadia, Baxter and the Adirondacks. Hikers are also destination goal oriented, in that they need a peak, viewpoint, waterfall, exotic plants, or some wildlife to see to make there trail experience complete.

MtBer's on the other hand are all about the trail design and flow. Its not where the trail goes, its how it rides. Where it takes you and what you see is just an added bonus.

The trail runners are a little more like the MTBers, in the trail experience there seeking. But mostly it calorie burn there looking for.

The equestrians are mostly interested in fertilizing the trailside vegetation, but the popularity of that lifestyle is less prevelent around the southern new englands surburbia.

The almost hikers/walkers/dog walkers are mostly looking for fresh air, away from the streets with a little peicefulness is also a bonus. This is probably the other trail users that MTBers would encounter most often on there local trails.

The ATVers dont see much past there mud or dust spattered helmet sheilds.

Most snowmobiles are traveling at highway speeds on trails (snowmobile highways) that are 30 feet wide. There alternative sport in the warmer months is motorcycle touring.

[Evil Chocula]

Interesting post; I've been over on some of my old southern CA forums today reading about YET ANOTHER trail system shut down for mountain bikes by the equestrian/sierra club extremists. Imagine if a small group of people just shut down HP...or Nam... and there was nothing you could do about it. That is California. You have to poach trails, because sometime you don't have a choice.

Given this unique perspective (I moved here in January), all I can say is New England is like MTB HEAVEN compared to Southern California. And, most of the MTB mags are based in that area.

So, the point I'm trying to convey here is that this subject is no where near as relevant in this forum as it could be, which is a great thing :D.

[agabriel]

Evil, thats really suprising; SoCal looks like a really cool place to ride. In the past I had to go out to Santa Barbara fairly often and it looked like the riding would be incredible. Get into the foot hills with ocean views, etc - it seemed like it wouldn't get old.

[Evil Chocula]

Evil, thats really suprising; SoCal looks like a really cool place to ride. In the past I had to go out to Santa Barbara fairly often and it looked like the riding would be incredible. Get into the foot hills with ocean views, etc - it seemed like it wouldn't get old.

Santa Barbara you say? Thats even more hotly contested then San Diego! They do have some outstanding riding there, but its constantly at risk. Click around this lovely site: http://www.safetrails.net/index.asp

And I agree, it's shocking. Southern California is not the place you think it is, at least coming from New England. And if you're into FR/DH, FUGGETABOUTIT! In San Diego, there are 2, maybe 3 places worth riding a DH/FR bike within 3-4 hours, and they're both illegal. You woudn't think that from reading MB Action, Bike, etc but its a fact.

And NEMBA is like the UN compared to the regional orgs around there, which is obviously part of the problem.

Go New England!

[Aging Wannabee]

Imagine if a small group of people just shut down HP...or Nam... and there was nothing you could do about it.

That describes exactly what the Friends of the Fells did in the '90s, and I think it was a big reason why NEMBA was created.

[agabriel]

Wow... I don't even know what to say.

[Chris_T]

Fortunately for us MTBers in southern new england, most other trail user groups don't make much use of there local trails.

The equestrians are mostly interested in fertilizing the trailside vegetation, but the popularity of that lifestyle is less prevelent around the southern new englands surburbia.


Good analysis except for this paragraph.

Some equestrians are more like us than you'd like to admit. In fact, some of *us* ARE equestrians.

I had two great trail rides up at Kingdom Trails over Columbus Day weekend - one on my Kona Dawg and one on a quarter/draft mix. Cross-country riding on a horse gives you some of the same feelings of carving through the woods, enjoying the views, or negotiating tough terrain except that you're a LOT higher off the ground. And can't pedal. Not to mention the adrenalin rush from jumping on a horse.

Oh, and the horse doesn't do all the work, either.

So get over your horse-poo aversion and just ride. It won't stick to your tires like dog crap and stinks way less.

[woodsguy]

Horses at KT.... Boooooooooooooooo!

[Aging Wannabee]

Horses are just like bikes, only dumber.

[Chris_T]

Horses are just like bikes, only dumber.

And less obedient :-)

[Husqvarna]

Good analysis except for this paragraph.

Some equestrians are more like us than you'd like to admit. In fact, some of *us* ARE equestrians.

I had two great trail rides up at Kingdom Trails over Columbus Day weekend - one on my Kona Dawg and one on a quarter/draft mix. Cross-country riding on a horse gives you some of the same feelings of carving through the woods, enjoying the views, or negotiating tough terrain except that you're a LOT higher off the ground. And can't pedal. Not to mention the adrenalin rush from jumping on a horse.

Oh, and the horse doesn't do all the work, either.

So get over your horse-poo aversion and just ride. It won't stick to your tires like dog crap and stinks way less.

You read a lot into a single sentence.

Growing up on a dairy farm in Maine, ankle deep in cow slop for 20 years. Along with a few horses, pigs and chickens in the mix, i lost my poo aversion at an early age.

Did bit of horse riding myself, good transportation for mending fences when the tractor wouldn't fit or was to heavy for the soft ground. But having a horse is a lifestyle committment, not just a recreaction you do on the weekend. So there are a lot fewer of them.

"The horse doesn't do all the work", says you. But whats the horses opinion of that? If it was up to the horse, would you get to ride?

You are right about the the trail experience that mtb XC riders and equestrians seek out are similiar. But comparably frequency of trail use by a mtb'er is much higher then equestrian use in southern new england.

BTW, there was no "us" or "them" in my analysis. Because most of us are them, depending upon are choice of recreaction for the day.

[Chris_T]

But having a horse is a lifestyle committment, not just a recreaction you do on the weekend. So there are a lot fewer of them.

very true, even if you're just leasing


"The horse doesn't do all the work", says you. But whats the horses opinion of that? If it was up to the horse, would you get to ride?

Depends on the horse and their opinion of you. I know horses who get nutty if they don't get out and ride (kinda like me).


You are right about the the trail experience that mtb XC riders and equestrians seek out are similiar. But comparably frequency of trail use by a mtb'er is much higher then equestrian use in southern new england.

BTW, there was no "us" or "them" in my analysis. Because most of us are them, depending upon are choice of recreaction for the day.

All true.

In the end, my (over)reaction was centered around this line:
"The equestrians are mostly interested in fertilizing the trailside vegetation," but your clarifications show you do understand it's more than that.

Now get out and ride!

-C