Results 1 to 58 of 58

Thread: Magnolia trails

  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    7,962
    So it seems to me to be, this thing that I think I see.

  2. #2
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,892
    How are they going to deal wtih the crazy hobo camps?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    523
    To save us some time:

    NATO Recommended Comments for the West Magnolia Trails Project #41601

    Nederland Expansion

    However, I'm interested to see if any opinions have changed as this becomes more real or if everyone is just going to dig in (no pun intended)

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    How are they going to deal wtih the crazy hobo camps?
    Exactly the question I plan on asking when I meet with several rangers from the forest service next week. My dog was mauled by a transient's pit bull up there on Saturday so I'm particularly fed up with the situation. My dog will be ok, but required lots of stitches and a drain in his chest wound.

    I love trails, but it really rubs me the wrong way that they have the resources to put together a trail plan like this but not enforce basic rules such as 14-day camping limits. The police office who took my report told me "To be honest it's gotten so bad here lately I don't think it's safe for recreation right now."

  5. #5
    High Plains Drifter
    Reputation: Johnny Ryall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Parenteau View Post
    it really rubs me the wrong way that they have the resources to put together a trail plan like this but not enforce basic rules such as 14-day camping limits.
    Enforcing the camping limits is easier for a budget-constrained organization when it's onesy-twoseys. Some ranger notices somebody camped, comes back three weeks later for whatever reason and sees they are still there, call in LEO.

    But once it's 10s and hundreds (as it's getting to be in some areas now), somebody needs to actually catalog the campers. Way more time-consuming, and not gonna happen. Especially during fire season when all the green shirts are hoping to be sent out to work fires. The money FS employees make when they travel to a fire is quite good. They'd much rather be doing that than trolling around making notes about who's camping where starting when.

    Hopefully when cold season sets in most of the squatters will migrate south.
    always phoneless

  6. #6
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    The transient issue is a problem, and making this more of a trail destination will only highlight that problem. Enforcing the 14 day limit is not a real solution; it might stop permanent encampments but it won't eliminate the sketchy transients problem.

    As for the trail system, I have only focused on the area that I ride regularly. And I see good parts and bad parts. They are obliterating some trails that I know people like to ride, such as Roots & Rocks, and killing the Meadow Trails options for looping. But some trails, like Social 19, could use some love (for ex, has a hike a bike section due to big downed trees). And I like the idea of the new trails that they propose, though the proof is in the construction pudding.

    Ultimately, it's not nearly as many miles of new trail as is advertised, but it's also not nearly as much obliteration as it seems (if you look at the map, some of what they have as obliterated trail really isn't anything). There is one sweet trail I know of not on the map, and I'm hesitant to comment on it. And there is one trail slated for obliteration that is my favorite in the system. Not happy about that.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Ryall View Post
    Enforcing the camping limits is easier for a budget-constrained organization when it's onesy-twoseys. Some ranger notices somebody camped, comes back three weeks later for whatever reason and sees they are still there, call in LEO.

    But once it's 10s and hundreds (as it's getting to be in some areas now), somebody needs to actually catalog the campers. Way more time-consuming, and not gonna happen. Especially during fire season when all the green shirts are hoping to be sent out to work fires. The money FS employees make when they travel to a fire is quite good. They'd much rather be doing that than trolling around making notes about who's camping where starting when.

    Hopefully when cold season sets in most of the squatters will migrate south.
    I understand the challenges when it's rampant like this, but other districts seem to do a much better job of enforcing those rules and not just on a one off basis. It's been a problem that's gotten worse over the years and is a true danger to the community highlighted by the Cold Spring Fire. Evicting those transients near Ned is basically the equivalent of fire suppression.

    If the Gunnison District can get a plan to ban dispersed camping in the Gothic Corridor within a year, I fail to see why the Boulder Ranger District isn't acting with equal urgency as the situation here is much worse.

  8. #8
    High Plains Drifter
    Reputation: Johnny Ryall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Parenteau View Post
    I understand the challenges when it's rampant like this, but other districts seem to do a much better job of enforcing those rules and not just on a one off basis. It's been a problem that's gotten worse over the years and is a true danger to the community highlighted by the Cold Spring Fire. Evicting those transients near Ned is basically the equivalent of fire suppression.

    If the Gunnison District can get a plan to ban dispersed camping in the Gothic Corridor within a year, I fail to see why the Boulder Ranger District isn't acting with equal urgency as the situation here is much worse.
    I agree that it's a very serious problem.

    The Gunny Ranger District and the Ned District are very very different. Different customers. The campers up the Gothic Corridor were basically tourists. Lots of a-holes for sure, but different than the folks up in Ned. Those are not tourists. They are vagabond/vagrants. They are up there so they can be close to Boulder. Throw them out of the Ned area and they'll go somewhere else close to the Front Range.

    Your squatters are economic refugees or garden variety substance abuse travelers. They aren't camping, they are living rent free.
    always phoneless

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Ryall View Post
    I agree that it's a very serious problem.

    The Gunny Ranger District and the Ned District are very very different. Different customers. The campers up the Gothic Corridor were basically tourists. Lots of a-holes for sure, but different than the folks up in Ned. Those are not tourists. They are vagabond/vagrants. They are up there so they can be close to Boulder. Throw them out of the Ned area and they'll go somewhere else close to the Front Range.

    Your squatters are economic refugees or garden variety substance abuse travelers. They aren't camping, they are living rent free.
    I understand the difference between the two, trust me I got to know one of West Mags residents this weekend more than I ever would have wanted. With that said, the Ned area has a reputation among the transients as being pretty much a free for all with little threat of enforcement. Considering many of these people have existing warrants, simply increasing the threat of enforcement might help keep them away.

    Everyone agrees it's a complicated issue, but just saying it's hard and tricky really isn't a solution (which is the line I hear over and over from the FS). Whatever efforts have been done so far can only be considered an abject failure so it's time to start trying something new. It's hard to be sympathetic to the FS resource challenges when you are personally out hundreds of dollars and have an injured dog because of an encounter with a guy they should have evicted months ago. I can only imagine how the fire victims feel. I'm really over it.

  10. #10
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    The problem is real, and as Parenteau says, Ned is known as a free for all (and free). But I think the bottom line is that enforcement on its own isn't likely to happen. They either don't have the resources at all or won't allocate them there or both. And even if they did, all they can enforce is the 14 day limit, and that really won't change things. The reputation will simply become "Ned is a free for all, just make sure to move every 14 days".

    IMO, the best chance for real change up there is to make West Mag and Gordon Gulch fee camping areas (which provides a very easy mechanism for a camp host to enforce) and come up with new regs limiting dispersed camping in the district. If they do that, these areas can once again become a fun resource for people traveling on the Peak to Peak and people from the front range looking for an easy camping getaway.

  11. #11
    High Plains Drifter
    Reputation: Johnny Ryall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Parenteau View Post
    I understand the difference between the two, trust me I got to know one of West Mags residents this weekend more than I ever would have wanted. With that said, the Ned area has a reputation among the transients as being pretty much a free for all with little threat of enforcement. Considering many of these people have existing warrants, simply increasing the threat of enforcement might help keep them away.

    Everyone agrees it's a complicated issue, but just saying it's hard and tricky really isn't a solution (which is the line I hear over and over from the FS). Whatever efforts have been done so far can only be considered an abject failure so it's time to start trying something new. It's hard to be sympathetic to the FS resource challenges when you are personally out hundreds of dollars and have an injured dog because of an encounter with a guy they should have evicted months ago. I can only imagine how the fire victims feel. I'm really over it.
    I feel ya. My dog and I passed a squatter camp last weekend and luckily their pitties were tied. But they were yanking hard at their restraints.

    I agree that it's a super big problem and more needs to be done. But it's a developing problem and so far they don't seem to have a plan. They need to figure out some way to deal, but gubmint never adapts/responds quickly.

    They do have constrained budgets, and if they aren't being told from above that something is important, they'll save their staff and money for other things. Like fire. Fire fighting is one of the most poorly managed and costly things forest does. Nobody wants to really fund it during winter, but once a fire starts burning near the homes of the powerful phone calls are made and it's time to move. And once that happens cost is no object.

    Anyway, really sorry about your dog. If somebody allowed their dog to do that to mine, I'd probably be going back later with appropriate equipment for dealing with the problem.
    always phoneless

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Ryall View Post
    I feel ya. My dog and I passed a squatter camp last weekend and luckily their pitties were tied. But they were yanking hard at their restraints.

    I agree that it's a super big problem and more needs to be done. But it's a developing problem and so far they don't seem to have a plan. They need to figure out some way to deal, but gubmint never adapts/responds quickly.

    They do have constrained budgets, and if they aren't being told from above that something is important, they'll save their staff and money for other things. Like fire. Fire fighting is one of the most poorly managed and costly things forest does. Nobody wants to really fund it during winter, but once a fire starts burning near the homes of the powerful phone calls are made and it's time to move. And once that happens cost is no object.

    Anyway, really sorry about your dog. If somebody allowed their dog to do that to mine, I'd probably be going back later with appropriate equipment for dealing with the problem.
    Yeah, I'm pretty amazed I kept my cool. Everything was reported to the proper law enforcement and animal control so hopefully at least this particular dangerous dog can be addressed.

    My professional background involves dealing with government budgets so I'm way more familiar with the challenges of those constraints than I would like to be. One of my goals is to get a better understanding about the budget / resource issues at the Boulder District Office and find out if there is anyway for me to lend my skill set to them. I imagine this situation is a big thorn in their side they wish would go away.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    The problem is real, and as Parenteau says, Ned is known as a free for all (and free). But I think the bottom line is that enforcement on its own isn't likely to happen. They either don't have the resources at all or won't allocate them there or both. And even if they did, all they can enforce is the 14 day limit, and that really won't change things. The reputation will simply become "Ned is a free for all, just make sure to move every 14 days".

    IMO, the best chance for real change up there is to make West Mag and Gordon Gulch fee camping areas (which provides a very easy mechanism for a camp host to enforce) and come up with new regs limiting dispersed camping in the district. If they do that, these areas can once again become a fun resource for people traveling on the Peak to Peak and people from the front range looking for an easy camping getaway.
    Totally agree with your solution, in particular the camp host. Free camping easily accessible by bus from the Denver Metro unfortunately just doesn't appear sustainable anymore. Regarding dispersed camping in the area, perhaps something as simple as getting a dispersed permit (online or at the office) could help mitigate the problem. No permit, you're evicted and ticketed immediately.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wicket?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    86
    SIAP. Hopefully with more press coverage the issue will get the kind of attention it deserves and the FS will get the resources it needs for a solution.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/22/us...owns.html?_r=0

  15. #15
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Well, we've already discussed it in the above linked threads and my opinion has not changed.

    I think this will be an improvement as long as the trail work is well done and mt bikers are given right of way on specific trails, especially trails intended for descending like Bus and the proposed more difficult dh trail. For me, the key is specific mountain bike trails, f^&k the multi-use BS that's been pushed on us. I've been advocating for mountain bikers getting mt bike trails with us as the primary users if not the only users for many years now, and I'm happy to see in recent years this has gotten some traction. After the Sugar Mag fiasco I gave up on our local advocacy groups, but now we are thinking more progressively, and also the overcrowding in the front range has highlighted the fact that mt bikers need some of our own trails and this is best for everyone. Shoving multi-use trails down our throats for years has done a lot of damage to the quality of the mt bike experience in the entire front range area and I'm happy to see this is turning around and we're demanding the right to use our own public lands and not just kowtowing to the land managers' antiquated ideas about mt biking. Currently, in Boulder county a huge majority of riding by more experienced mt bikers is done on social trails. Past policies and attitudes towards mt bikers has turned us into a band of criminals building social trails to meet our needs. This is more than ridiculous, it's completely backwards and negligent, I'd even go so far as to say the attitudes and decisions of Boulder land managers has been borderline criminal for their discrimination and intolerance against mt biking.

    And as far as Nederland trails in particular, they need work and nobody does ANYTHING up there, including NATO, who should really just disband at this point considering their ridiculous reaction to the magnolia trails proposal. BMA did some work on Bus and recently some non-locals have done a bit of work in other areas, but besides that I see absolutely no local involvement and thus the fact Ned locals live closer to the trails means absolutely nothing to me whatsoever. Just because you live closer to the trailhead does not give you more say than me, or make your opinions more important. What does make your opinion more important is if you're actually designing, building and maintaining trail... then you have some work into it and that should be respected, but the truth is, in Nederland, the folks with the most claim to the magnolia trails are actually moto riders.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Dave,

    1. NATO isn't mountain bike specific. It's a multi-use trail group.

    2. Ned locals are a little bit more concerned with the other issue going on at West and East Mag right now than trail maintenance. Also given this comment period happened before the start of the season and people didn't know which trails would be decommissioned, it didn't make sense to have lots of formal days. There was a trash cleanup though, although evidence of that is long gone by now.

    3. Who do you think removed all the downed trees up there this spring? The Downed Tree fairy? A mix of locals and riders who never ask for a "thank you" did, just like they do every year. It's nice that you crap on their efforts though.

  17. #17
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Parenteau View Post
    Dave,

    1. NATO isn't mountain bike specific. It's a multi-use trail group.

    2. Ned locals are a little bit more concerned with the other issue going on at West and East Mag right now than trail maintenance. Also given this comment period happened before the start of the season and people didn't know which trails would be decommissioned, it didn't make sense to have lots of formal days. There was a trash cleanup though, although evidence of that is long gone by now.

    3. Who do you think removed all the downed trees up there this spring? The Downed Tree fairy? A mix of locals and riders who never ask for a "thank you" did, just like they do every year. It's nice that you crap on their efforts though.
    Their objection to the magnolia project being mountain-bike specific was ridiculous and disgusting. We have NO mtb specific-trails in all of Boulder County and NATO wants to get all NIMBY about it? When they have no real claim to anything and do next to nothing? Their entire raison d'etre is the Sugar Mag project and it was necessary then, but the group was formed to complain and that's all they've ever done, and now it's getting tiresome. Especially when the mag plan is a big step beyond what's been done in the past and a huge boon to mt bikers in the area? Seriously?

    BTW, I help remove downed trees too, and so do other non-locals... attributing that exclusively to locals is ridiculous as well.

    SO yeah, I crap on their efforts and hope they just go away at this point. Better off without them imo.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Their objection to the magnolia project being mountain-bike specific was ridiculous and disgusting. We have NO mtb specific-trails in all of Boulder County and NATO wants to get all NIMBY about it? When they have no real claim to anything and do next to nothing? Their entire raison d'etre is the Sugar Mag project and it was necessary then, but the group was formed to complain and that's all they've ever done, and now it's getting tiresome. Especially when the mag plan is a big step beyond what's been done in the past and a huge boon to mt bikers in the area? Seriously?

    BTW, I help remove downed trees too, and so do other non-locals... attributing that exclusively to locals is ridiculous as well.

    SO yeah, I crap on their efforts and hope they just go away at this point. Better off without them imo.
    If you actually read what I posted I didn't say it was just locals clearing trees. I said a mix of locals and riders. Glad you help clear the trees too.

    However, it is a bit much to claim a MULTI-USE trail group should be disbanded because they advocated for multi-use trails in their backyard, especially when it appeared the plan would lead to a net loss of trail mileage. Given the transient situation at West Mag, it's critical for all groups to band together and get that taken care of in addition to trails. As much fun as a bike specific trail would be, there are more pressing issues than *****ing about other people trying to use the area for recreation.

    I appreciate your passion, it would be great if you could direct it in a more constructive way instead of just crapping on people who have a different opinion than yourself.

  19. #19
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    I took a look at the final trail map and compared it against Strava heat maps to get a sense on what trails are mostly ridden and the impact to mountain bikes on the reduction of tail mileage.

    Overall I am encouraged. Yes there is a lot of social trail to be obliterated but that slated to go in not the stuff that people mostly ride (at least what they GPS...) There are a few sections that give me pause but those sections that will get lost seem to be made up with new loops coming off the hobbits and the whole new system of trail on the north west side to connect up with the top of Schoolbus and the new Toll trail. If done right, these could be very good.

    Over the coming weeks I may generate a picture of the proposed new trails with the current strava heat map overlaid so you can see more clearly the changes on the active trails that we ride (and document..)

  20. #20
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    I don't strava so my heat won't show.

    What's interesting is I was looking over some of the earlier stuff, and the one I mentioned earlier as my favorite (now slated for obliteration) was not on the original action map at all. WTF?

  21. #21
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Parenteau - saw your post in the P2PFW group. Hope your pup is okay.


    Dave - Not sure where your info is coming from. NATO has held several very well attended trail work days at WM with the USFS. Much of the work you're referencing on Bus is from that. NATO members also attended the BMA work days on the same trail (different sections). Several additional days that we would have like to put towards trailwork, were instead put towards cleanups. That trash wasn't clearing itself, and BoCo only recently started bringing up the prison crews.

    I cleared ~20 early-season WM trees one night before my saw took a dive, and a few others with the pack saw since.. but given the dozens from the winds this past winter and the secondary spring storm - the locals certainly don't have an exclusive.

    NATO and BMA leadership have also been meeting over the summer in anticipation of this Draft. Both groups are jointly discussing their respective comments prior to release.

    If the multi-use perspective of the group offends you, then I don't have another answer. Nearly everyone shares mountainbikes in common, but also has other hobbies. Helping represent the local community is why we are tied into Ned POSAC and other groups.

    If you want something to really chew on.. check out the "grade standards" outlined in the Draft Decision doc. That will make the concept of "DH" trails, ahh, challenging.

    -----
    Trail Alignment and Design:
    • Design stream crossings to minimize sedimentation and/or direct impacts
    • Minimize “fall line” alignments
    • As a general guideline, maximum trail grade should be 15 percent (except for natural or built rock structures). Average trail grade should stay under 10 percent (with grade reversals)
    • Follow the half-rule to the extent possible. A trail's grade shouldn't exceed half the grade of the side-slope.
    • Minimize alignments through completely flat areas where few drainage options exist the hillside
    • Apply cross drainage as frequently as needed to minimize erosion of the trail tread. Techniques include out-sloping where possible, dips and water-bars
    • Armor trail tread if/where needed. For highly technical trails where grade will sometimes exceed 15 percent, use natural rock, rock armoring or other rock features to add challenge and improve sustainability
    • Specify and maintain recommended trail widths
    • Minimize trail alignments within or directly adjacent to inner gorges, riparian vegetation zones, wetlands or stream channels
    • Consult US Forest Service Watershed personnel for review of trails with potential to impact soils and water resources
    • Trail/stream crossing will be constructed to limit erosion and avoided if at all possible
    -----

  22. #22
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Ryall View Post
    Enforcing the camping limits is easier for a budget-constrained organization when it's onesy-twoseys. Some ranger notices somebody camped, comes back three weeks later for whatever reason and sees they are still there, call in LEO.

    But once it's 10s and hundreds (as it's getting to be in some areas now), somebody needs to actually catalog the campers. Way more time-consuming, and not gonna happen. Especially during fire season when all the green shirts are hoping to be sent out to work fires. The money FS employees make when they travel to a fire is quite good. They'd much rather be doing that than trolling around making notes about who's camping where starting when.

    Hopefully when cold season sets in most of the squatters will migrate south.
    Budget constraint AND budget priority. The BRD has quietly spent hundreds of thousands (millions?) the past couple years paying contractors to chew up 100 year-old mining routes, downing hundreds of trees and building rail fencing to shut down access to the motorized crowd. 509, Switz/Gordon, Johnny, Gross, Jenny Creek, Apex, etc have all pissed large piles of cash keeping contracted heavy excavation crews chewing up large swaths of forest and hillsides all to shut down the "erosion" of one 12" wide dirt track that's been there for 50 years but didn't make it on a map with the MVUM switch in 2006. The budget priority from above - one step after fire - is not to get sued by the CBD or latest Sierra-esque legal front under ESA or on NEPA technicalities. As we all know, those groups have a fairly myopic vision of the world, and could give a piss about the what it does to the USFS LEO budgets to effectively manage uses. Especially given that the more extreme of them would like to see most all forests restricted from any form of human use.

  23. #23
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks for the info, thump, and as always, thanks for the trail fairy work too.

    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    NATO and BMA leadership have also been meeting over the summer in anticipation of this Draft. Both groups are jointly discussing their respective comments prior to release.
    That is REALLY good to read.

    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    If you want something to really chew on.. check out the "grade standards" outlined in the Draft Decision doc. That will make the concept of "DH" trails, ahh, challenging.
    Godf*cking dammit, if we get more High Fructose Mag trails because the USFS is too chickensh*t to allow anything else, I'm gonna be pissed.

  24. #24
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    Thanks for the info, thump, and as always, thanks for the trail fairy work too.



    That is REALLY good to read.



    Godf*cking dammit, if we get more High Fructose Mag trails because the USFS is too chickensh*t to allow anything else, I'm gonna be pissed.
    Good to read? Only if you happen to agree with NATO, which I do not. I don't believe they have any more claim to mag trails than anyone else.

    On the next thing, that's NOT the case. I also happen to agree with the list of guidelines as well. Note that IF the grade exceeds xx then the trail should be armored. This is standard operating procedure just about everywhere including resorts unless the idea is to purposefully let a section of the trail erode, which can be ok in certain circumstances. If the more difficult sections of trail happen to be on rock like Blackjack trail in Buff Creek, then it would meet the standard.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  25. #25
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Good to read? Only if you happen to agree with NATO, which I do not. I don't believe they have any more claim to mag trails than anyone else.
    Yes, FOR ME it is good to read because I would prefer that the two local trail advocacy groups work together and not fight each other. Is that so hard to understand? If you want to create a third advocacy group, go for it. Maybe I'll join if I like what you're pushing. But until then, these are the 2 biggest voices bikers have (might even say the only 2 voices that bikers have) on this project, and they're much more effective voices if they're speaking as one and not speaking at odds.

    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    On the next thing, that's NOT the case. I also happen to agree with the list of guidelines as well.
    Um, great? I don't do much trail work, so I was just reacting to thump's post (and past history). If those trail guidelines are not an issue with respect to getting a wide variety of trails including possible DH trails, then cool.

  26. #26
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    Yes, FOR ME it is good to read because I would prefer that the two local trail advocacy groups work together and not fight each other. Is that so hard to understand? If you want to create a third advocacy group, go for it. Maybe I'll join if I like what you're pushing. But until then, these are the 2 biggest voices bikers have (might even say the only 2 voices that bikers have) on this project, and they're much more effective voices if they're speaking as one and not speaking at odds.



    Um, great? I don't do much trail work, so I was just reacting to thump's post (and past history). If those trail guidelines are not an issue with respect to getting a wide variety of trails including possible DH trails, then cool.
    Don't put words in my mouth or tell me what I'm thinking! Or that I "don't understand". That's a pretty offensive post there, Dan.

    Look, I strongly disagree with NATO's reaction to the mag proposal and the fact is, last I heard, BMA and NATO weren't in agreement. So there is no "speaking as one" unless something has changed. Of course I'd prefer if BMA and NATO were in agreement and advocating for exactly what I want, but it's just not the case. You're in fantasy-land, Dan.

    Let's concentrate on what's real. BMA and NATO have completely different ideas about what's going to be the best solution for mag trails, and the list of guidelines Ken posted are not going to prevent fun, steep, or difficult trails from being built. Those are facts... what you posted and are assuming is your own fantasy.
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  27. #27
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Don't put words in my mouth or tell me what I'm thinking! Or that I "don't understand". That's a pretty offensive post there, Dan.
    Wow, there's some irony. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth or telling you what you're thinking (when I did no such thing, how much more clear could the "FOR ME" have been?), yet you then make up a quote and attribute it to me. I did not say that you don't understand, I posted a rhetorical question "is that so hard to understand", because you questioned my post, where I said that the two groups working collaboratively was "good to read". You are welcome to disagree and think it is not good to read, but you don't get to change my opinion of it. And I think my opinion was pretty clear and obvious (hence the rhetorical question). Yes, one of the posts was offensive, but it wasn't mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    Look, I strongly disagree with NATO's reaction to the mag proposal and the fact is, last I heard, BMA and NATO weren't in agreement. So there is no "speaking as one" unless something has changed. Of course I'd prefer if BMA and NATO were in agreement and advocating for exactly what I want, but it's just not the case. You're in fantasy-land, Dan.
    Yes, I am skeptical based on past history. But I was responding to thump's post, and only to thump's post, which said that they were working collaboratively. Seeing as he is a NATO board member (or was, not sure of current status), it seemed like reliable information and worth commenting positively on. Maybe I'm in fantasy land, I suppose only BMA and NATO representatives can comment on that (are you one of those?), but I just read a post by a NATO representative that gave me some optimism and I responded to it. Sorry that I read a post and responded to it in a manner that you don't like.

  28. #28
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    Wow, there's some irony. You accuse me of putting words in your mouth or telling you what you're thinking (when I did no such thing, how much more clear could the "FOR ME" have been?), yet you then make up a quote and attribute it to me. I did not say that you don't understand, I posted a rhetorical question "is that so hard to understand", because you questioned my post, where I said that the two groups working collaboratively was "good to read". You are welcome to disagree and think it is not good to read, but you don't get to change my opinion of it. And I think my opinion was pretty clear and obvious (hence the rhetorical question). Yes, one of the posts was offensive, but it wasn't mine.



    Yes, I am skeptical based on past history. But I was responding to thump's post, and only to thump's post, which said that they were working collaboratively. Seeing as he is a NATO board member (or was, not sure of current status), it seemed like reliable information and worth commenting positively on. Maybe I'm in fantasy land, I suppose only BMA and NATO representatives can comment on that (are you one of those?), but I just read a post by a NATO representative that gave me some optimism and I responded to it. Sorry that I read a post and responded to it in a manner that you don't like.
    You're so full of $hit Dan.

    Your response to my post framed the situation in a way that made a lot of incorrect ASSumptions about what I think. As I sad, don't tell me what I think. It's very offensive, and if you can't see that you have issues. Now you're trying to turn it around and say I'm the one who is offensive just like a little kid. I seriously can't believe you're a lawyer, your fallacies in this discussion are unbelievable!

    Apparently you can't read the NATO response to the BMA proposition and come to your own conclusions that the two are in opposition? What's all this BS about "speaking as one". That doesn't happen and won't happen unless they are actually in agreement and unless something has changed that's just not the case.

    Last we talked about this you were in agreement with BMA's plan but wouldn't admit it publicly because you didn't want to offend NATO members. Now that we're here talking about it and you're offending me I don't mind sharing that information here. IMO, that makes you a coward and your opinion much less valuable because we don't really know why you're saying what you're saying. Is it because that's what you really believe or is it just to kiss-a$$?
    .




    Strava: turn off your dork logger when you're not on sanctioned trails.

  29. #29
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    11,892

  30. #30
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    Well that escalated quickly.
    ^ That.

    I'm not going to mtbr e-fight with guys I've ridden bikes with. That's what beer is for. You know where to find me.

    For the record - the new/current BMA leadership and NATO have met again this summer, and have continuing dialogue. I can only speak for myself in saying I believe everyone that has come to the table this time has done so with good intentions. This Draft will likely tell us whether our goals can align enough to put forward joint recommendations/objections, or at least recommendations that share common themes, but the effort is being made by both sides.

    Cheers.

  31. #31
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by davec113 View Post
    You're so full of $hit Dan.

    Your response to my post framed the situation in a way that made a lot of incorrect ASSumptions about what I think. As I sad, don't tell me what I think. It's very offensive, and if you can't see that you have issues. Now you're trying to turn it around and say I'm the one who is offensive just like a little kid. I seriously can't believe you're a lawyer, your fallacies in this discussion are unbelievable!

    Apparently you can't read the NATO response to the BMA proposition and come to your own conclusions that the two are in opposition? What's all this BS about "speaking as one". That doesn't happen and won't happen unless they are actually in agreement and unless something has changed that's just not the case.

    Last we talked about this you were in agreement with BMA's plan but wouldn't admit it publicly because you didn't want to offend NATO members. Now that we're here talking about it and you're offending me I don't mind sharing that information here. IMO, that makes you a coward and your opinion much less valuable because we don't really know why you're saying what you're saying. Is it because that's what you really believe or is it just to kiss-a$$?
    I don't know what you think, I have not told you or anyone here what you think, I have not assumed anything about you or what you think. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you. I'm sorry that you feel this way about me.

  32. #32
    contains quinine
    Reputation: Debaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,623
    Quote Originally Posted by thump View Post
    ...For the record - the new/current BMA leadership and NATO have met again this summer, and have continuing dialogue. I can only speak for myself in saying I believe everyone that has come to the table this time has done so with good intentions. This Draft will likely tell us whether our goals can align enough to put forward joint recommendations/objections, or at least recommendations that share common themes, but the effort is being made by both sides.

    Cheers.
    I can affirm that BMA is working with good intentions on finding common ground with NATO in regards to the USFS proposal.
    Take the long cut, we'll get there eventually.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jugdish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,254
    Circle jerk or pissing contest, either way you're standing around with your d1ck in your hand.

  34. #34
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    In my email yesterday:

    NATO and BMA form committee to collaborate in implementing the Boulder Ranger District’s 44+ mile trail project near Ned


    The Nederland Area Trail Organization (NATO) and Boulder Mountainbike Alliance (BMA) have collaborated to form a joint NATO-BMA Magnolia Non-Motorized Trails Project Committee to address cooperatively the need for planning, fundraising and implementation of a trail system on 6,000 acres near Nederland. The U.S. Forest Service’s Boulder Ranger District released a draft decision and final environmental assessment on a proposal to create a sustainable non-motorized trail system and is currently accepting public objections to the project.

    Speaking on behalf of the NATO/BMA Project Committee, Steve Watts, BMA executive director stated, “Our organizations sent a letter of support to the Boulder Ranger District’s Sylvia Clark stating that we have no objections to this project. Our organizations support this project and welcome the opportunity to have collaborative and proactive engagement with the USFS.”

    Collectively, NATO and BMA have concerns regarding safety, sanitation, and trail design and want to utilize the adaptive management principles of this project to address construction funding and plans for budgeting maintenance and servicing of proposed toilet facilities; issues related to fire safety; maintaining the unique flavor of the trails and historic trail system alignments; and, the limited scope of the winter recreational pilot.

    The Boards of NATO and BMA wish to commend Sylvia Clark, the Boulder Ranger District staff and the US Forest Service for successful development of the Environmental Assessment and Draft Decision for the Magnolia Non-Motorized Trail Project. The project will be implemented in phases over the next 5 to 10 years by working with partners on both fundraising and implementation. Our two organizations stand ready to engage the BRD to discuss a partnership to move this project from concept to reality.

  35. #35
    contains quinine
    Reputation: Debaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Bagwhan View Post
    In my email yesterday:
    Thanks for posting. I hope it clears up doubts some people have expressed.
    Take the long cut, we'll get there eventually.

  36. #36
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    I'm actually looking forward to the project now and do hope that security in the area can be addressed. I know I have not ridden West Mag much this year in part because I did not want to deal with the Transients in the evening (which is when I tend to ride).

    This also reminds me to get out there and video all the trails as a "Magnolia Redevelopment Project" so I can catalog the change... 5-10 year eh? I'll be getting pretty old by the time this is all done

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    34

    F*ckin' Flatlanders...

    ...bogarting our trails!

    (It's been a long time Debaser)

  38. #38
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    The final draft was released today.

    https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/arp/h...stelprd3848428

    I am cautiously optimistic for the West Mag system. East Mag appears to get the most obliteration of social trails, especially those around the Front Range trail head. I think most of these are walker trails and are less used by bikes but that might still be a shame - but I haven't ridden them all so don't really know.

    In the Spring/Summer I think I may start my project to catalog and video all the identified trails on my YouTube channel so that there is a record of change on the trail system. It will be interesting 10 years from now to see how it has changed.

  39. #39
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    Got this in my email today.......

    U.S. Forest Service
    Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests
    Pawnee National Grassland
    Boulder Ranger District

    Media Contact: Reid Armstrong, 303-541-2532 or 970-222-7607
    Registration Contact: Matt Henry, 303-541-2510 or matthewhenry@fs.fed.us

    Registration now open for Magnolia Trails Project implementation meeting
    Sign up required by March 31 for meeting attendees


    BOULDER, Colo. (March 25, 2017) – The first implementation meeting for the U.S. Forest Service’s Magnolia Non-Motorized Trails Project will take place from 1-4 p.m. Friday, April 21. The public is welcome to attend.

    This interactive meeting will focus on:

    · Beginning the teambuilding process;

    · Setting goals and priorities for the first year of implementation; and,

    · Developing smaller working groups.

    The December 2016 Magnolia Non-Motorized Trails Project Decision authorized a 44-mile, non-motorized trail system across about 6,000 acres branching out from the Peak to Peak Highway in areas known as East Magnolia and West Magnolia. The decision includes a variety of components, including building new trails, decommissioning user-created trails, rerouting trails, creating better regional trail connectivity, and improving trailheads and signage.

    The decision also includes a collaborative approach to implementation. Input from user groups, landowners and other agencies will play a role in trail layout, design and construction, as well as monitoring and education. At the first meeting, attendees will have a chance to meet each other, discuss their interests and priorities, and sign up for the working groups to continue engaging in this collaborative effort.

    “This meeting is an opportunity for people who want to roll up their sleeves and participate in this project to connect with each other and with us,” said Boulder Ranger District recreation program manager Matt Henry. “After years of planning, we’ve finally gotten to the fun part. There are a lot of great ideas and energy in the community, and we are looking forward to working with a wide variety of people who want to connect with the landscape through interests in trail design, monitoring wildlife, educating the public, or just putting a shovel in the dirt.”

    The District is requesting that attendees register by March 31 so that it can book an appropriately sized room for the meeting. Registrants will be sent informational material and a questionnaire to be completed prior to the meeting.

    Meeting attendees are asked to educate themselves about the project prior to the meeting by reading the Record of Decision on the project webpage www.fs.usda.gov/goto/arp/MagnoliaTrails. Regular project updates, photos and volunteer opportunities also will be posted to this webpage for those who are interested in staying informed on the project but don’t want to attend regular meetings.

    In order to register, please email matthewhenry@fs.fed.us. Please include your full name and put Magnolia Trails RSVP in the subject line.



    K. “Reid” Armstrong
    Public Affairs Specialist/Community Liaison
    Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests
    Pawnee National Grassland
    p: 303-541-2532
    c: 970-222-7607
    krarmstrong@fs.fed.us


    fs.usda.gov/arp
    Caring for the land and serving people

  40. #40
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Bump for last day to RSVP for the implementation meeting.

  41. #41
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    Thank you for bumping. I did the RSVP and intend to be there (if I'm not too busy with work that afternoon).

  42. #42
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Same for me.

  43. #43
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    For those who have signed up to attend the implementation meeting, don't forget it is tomorrow (Friday) at 1pm-4pm.

    I'll be there, so if you're going say Hi (I'm the one with the funny accent).

  44. #44
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    I'll be there too. Without a funny accent.

  45. #45
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    Well I seemed to be at a table full of conservationists that would like to eliminate a number of trails and to close the area in the Spring and Fall so Elk could migrate through it.

    Ugg!

    Perhaps it's the timing; 1-4pm on a Friday afternoon (I took a 1/2 day off work to attend) but I thought representation from the mountain bike community lacking. There seemed to be a good percentage of retired folks (those with time on their hands) more concern with fauna and flora than recreation.

    It's going to be a long process. Only about 1/3rd of the expected audience turned up so there should be opportunity to sign up for one of the project groups online when the Forest Service set it up. If you want a voice in the future Mag trails process you need to show up.

  46. #46
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    Quote Originally Posted by SkaredShtles View Post
    How are they going to deal wtih the crazy hobo camps?
    Stressing on the FS that there be an action plan for transient campers was high on the priority list for many who attended.

  47. #47
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNormsk View Post
    Stressing on the FS that there be an action plan for transient campers was high on the priority list for many who attended.
    And yet seemingly not high on the FS list. Or more accurately, not on the list at all.

    Will try to post my thoughts later. Sorry I didn't meet you, I did see you (yes, the accent gave you away) and I was going to introduce myself when the thing broke up, but you were talking to the BMA guys.

  48. #48
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,191
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNormsk View Post
    Well I seemed to be at a table full of conservationists that would like to eliminate a number of trails and to close the area in the Spring and Fall so Elk could migrate through it.
    .
    Isn't the EA already done and decided on all of this?
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  49. #49
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    Isn't the EA already done and decided on all of this?
    Yes, but I get a sense that some trail elements are still "fluid".

    For example, the comment on my table was that cyclists cause more impact to the migrating elk than hikers so perhaps some trail's should be walker only! Surprise, surprise!

    I countered that the majority of trail's in the Boulder area are hiker only anyway and that Boulder was herding us into concentrated areas like West Mag so they can't have it both ways. Now if they opened more trail's in the Boulder vicinity then perhaps there may be less "impact" on elk.

    These conservationists were long term (40+ years) Boulder residents..... you can imagine the type.

  50. #50
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,191
    not surprised. Boulder enviros coming up to Ned to try and keep bikes out of a USFS designated mountain bike area that was primarily created by bikes and for bikes. Sounds about right.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  51. #51
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    not surprised. Boulder enviros coming up to Ned to try and keep bikes out of a USFS designated mountain bike area that was primarily created by bikes and for bikes. Sounds about right.
    They didn't even have to come to Ned, the meeting was in Boulder. Really disappointing that 50 or so people showed up out of 140 that RSVPed. But who knows, maybe the 90 who didn't show were all wildlife folks, lol.

  52. #52
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,467
    I heard that not many, if any, showed up from NATO. Not knowing those guys I can't say if that was true.

  53. #53
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    I have no idea either. I do think it sucks that the meeting was in Boulder and not Ned.

  54. #54
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNormsk View Post
    I heard that not many, if any, showed up from NATO. Not knowing those guys I can't say if that was true.
    A few did.. and some significant others as stand-ins for folks that had to work.

  55. #55
    Agent of tang
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,109
    I was at a table with a spousal stand in, so can confirm.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    357
    I'm disappointed by the whole thing. I feel that once again Nederland is getting left out of the process that's happening right in their back yards. It's not just the mountain bikers but the community as a whole that is interested in it. It goes beyond trails, it deals with campers and wildfires, other things that neighbors are concerned about. I RSVP'd for the meeting, but because of work I was unable to attend. The date, time and location of the meeting was announced only a week prior to the meeting time. Difficult to change schedules around for many. I am also a board member of NATO and on the NATO/BMA subcommittee.... disappointed that I couldn't make it, and disappointed on how it went down. Felt like they were trying to make it difficult for people to get to the meeting that are really passionate about the issues.

  57. #57
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,551
    Quote Originally Posted by skogorbet View Post
    I'm disappointed by the whole thing. I feel that once again Nederland is getting left out of the process that's happening right in their back yards. It's not just the mountain bikers but the community as a whole that is interested in it. It goes beyond trails, it deals with campers and wildfires, other things that neighbors are concerned about. I RSVP'd for the meeting, but because of work I was unable to attend. The date, time and location of the meeting was announced only a week prior to the meeting time. Difficult to change schedules around for many. I am also a board member of NATO and on the NATO/BMA subcommittee.... disappointed that I couldn't make it, and disappointed on how it went down. Felt like they were trying to make it difficult for people to get to the meeting that are really passionate about the issues.
    I understand it's easy for someone from the sidelines to say "if this is so important you need to figure out a way to make these meetings" I get that it's a person's freaking job that pays the bills and puts a roof over the head that's being talked about here. Regardless, the bottom line is these meetings and processes are formed and run by those who show up. It's tough, it might not seem fair, but that's the bottom line.

    If possible, maybe it would be a strategically good move to try to get more retired type people involved who can make meetings with less notice.

  58. #58
    solution?
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    22
    This meeting was just the start. The location of the meeting was to accommodate as many people as possible with interest in the process. People were there from Ft. Collins, Denver, Longmont, Erie, etc.as well as Ned. Information from the meeting will be posted on USFS website.
    The "enviros" were mostly at one table and not the dominate group. This process is moving forward under the terms laid out in the plan. The only option the enviros have left to disrupt the process is by getting CPW involved and CPW had a significant presence. CPW controls most of the funding money for public lands in Colorado so this is the angle they are using. Fortunately most if not all of the work can be done without them. If you want to get involved then stay informed and stay in the information stream. I've been at this for 8 years now and it's the long view that will prevail. This was not the only meeting that will happen and those who stay level headed and involved will have the most influence. I encourage all who are concerned to stay the course. Just because you were not able to make it last Friday doesn't mean you're out of the picture. Sign up for the working groups and show up when you can.

Similar Threads

  1. NATO Recommended Comments for the West Magnolia Trails Project #41601
    By skogorbet in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 03:02 PM
  2. West Magnolia trails plan
    By Vogelman! in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-14-2015, 06:29 AM
  3. west magnolia area camping
    By cavo in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 12:25 AM
  4. The Dot Trails at Magnolia closed until June 30.
    By TheNormsk in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-04-2014, 09:24 AM
  5. OT(ish) Magnolia Road rideable?
    By Tokay in forum Colorado - Front Range
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-18-2011, 06:58 AM

Members who have read this thread: 136

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •