Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

National Parks and MTBing... report

2K views 31 replies 7 participants last post by  singlesprocket 
#1 ·
#5 ·
If you read past the first page, you'll see that the document is from 2011 and refers to a trial from 2011. Not that out of date....

Mountain bike advocacy issues are pretty universal. The same resistance we run into here, they run into there, I'm sure. Just because their seasons are the reverse of ours doesn't invalidate the data. The document is relevant.

If that's still not good enough for you, here's a link to a presentation and trail classification system given by Parks Canada and the US Park System this summer at the IMBA World Summit. I hope that's recent and close enough for you:

Mountain Biking in National Parks | International Mountain Bicycling Association
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enduramil
#6 ·
I know that in our talks with the HCA staff, they're always asking us about what research is out there and what people are doing in other jurisdictions. So I'll take anything I can get my hands on! :)
 
#9 ·
While we're on the topic, has anyone stumbled across any information on trail density?

We were asked by the ecologist about density and capacity and while we were able to speak about it in broad, qualitative terms (we aim to keep treads a "reasonable" distance from one another and keep them out of sight from the double track and each other...), I couldn't think of a source for recommendations on distance per area or something similar. :confused:
 
#10 ·
While we're on the topic, has anyone stumbled across any information on trail density?

We were asked by the ecologist about density and capacity and while we were able to speak about it in broad, qualitative terms (we aim to keep treads a "reasonable" distance from one another and keep them out of sight from the double track and each other...), I couldn't think of a source for recommendations on distance per area or something similar. :confused:
Or "ecological sustainability"?
 
#22 ·
Some observations (btw, it was a good quick unbloviated read, Enduramil):

The NZ DOC 2005 update to their policy seems to mesh with what IMBA Canada and NP Canada has done and is continuing to do (thank you Mark Schmidt!)

"In 2004, Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC) and MTBNZ signed an Accord agreeing to
support each other in a number of areas" seems like this should be in bold. how beautiful is that? trail users coming together instead of being divided and ruled against. more hands make light work.

The perception studies are interesting, and encouraging, although I doubt there has been such a sea change here in the same time span. The erosion studies have (un)remarkably similar results to the UofG studies done here way back when.

Yes, nothing new (apart from the perception studies, which I have noticed are done in the US, but not here, that particular study is listed on the IMBA site, but what do they know about advocacy...), nonetheless it's nice to see the convergence globally.
 
#24 ·
My comment was more facetious and doesn't reflect my thoughts on imba. The people at imba canada, Mark, Lora, Jason, etc have done great things, if it wasn't for them, would we even have the crothers woods trails sanctioned by the city ? IMBA has had a bit more success in other municipalities (which has more to do with with the city's aversion to looking at activities from a drawback-ie. liability perspective, instead of a benefit perspective), but in the end I think it is local clubs that will make the difference as they become better organized, create alliances with what in the past has been our "rivals": hikers, dog walkers, naturalists (a very important step, imo), because we all want the same thing in the end and that must be recognized (the benefits of these activities can be qualified and quantified very easily), like it was for the FMC's and MTBNZ. So yeah, I think in that sense NZ is a bit ahead of us.
 
#26 ·
there would be trails in crother woods either way. i think the city has realized that it is better to work with stakeholders rather then shut them out. the trails would get built one way or the other in other words as you well know. the cities and most conservation association mandates in the end is to protect the forest (green space) first. if building a trail will do that or that a trail will divert people from a sensitive area then it is an easy sell. that you provide recreation sustainable recreation opportunities that meet the living cities objectives is the cream on top. now the idea of a mtb only trail out side a skill area is almost dead with these associations, it just does not make sense to them. most trail committees models are now made up of a diverse # of stakeholders thus the emphasis on multi use trails. in this committee mix clubs play a more limited roll as they only represent a small portion of users. the trail construction will become less dependent on volunteer labor, the emphasis will be on tenders to qualified construction companies since they have the accountability (liability, think skate parks). general maintenance will still be a role that volunteer can do.

the alliances you speak of are already built into the structures of these committees. this will be the trend of the future...
 
#27 ·
i think you should read the link that Enduramil posted. this is strictly the kind of trails we like to ride...the alliance is between hikers, climbers (FMC) and mtbnz, lighter treading modes of recreational transportation than atv's and horses, with a narrower trail corridor and lower ecological impact. not the same as the OTC, which uses provincial funds (looks like $75 mil in the last three years) on who knows what (they don't really say). In fact, if you actually looked at the OTC trails map for off road cycling, you would find less than a handful of mtb trails on there.
 
#29 ·
which recreational transportation is the major tourism income generator here in ontario outside of major urban areas? which is why the nz report does not hold alot of water here
in these committees, plus the huge population difference and size of urban areas. mtbers have missed the boat on forming alliances with the trail council years ago and have a lot of ground to make up. talking and citing reports on narrower trail corridors and lower ecological impacts will get us no where fast at this stage. the urban areas are a different story and i touched on that in a different post.
 
#31 ·
I'll say it again: you should read the report, it concerns wilderness/back-country trails, not atv or horse trails (in our neck of the woods, the BT is apropos: we all ride/rode sections of the bruce at some point, we know it can be suitable for mtb, not all sections obviously) . I'm happy that the atvers and equestrians let you get into bed with them, even if you have to be inside spoon for now, but the scope of the NZ report has zero to do with those types of activities. And as a mtb advocate you should recognize the types of trails that we all love riding most instead of defending the oligarchical status quo and basically telling us that we should accept any pittance that is thrown our way because the economics says so.

That's why I find these perception studies important, it shows that a community can self-improve and boldly go where they say we can't, alliances with hikers and naturalists are more suitable for mtb than those with atvers and horse peeps. Are we not free to choose sense over dollars?
 
#32 · (Edited)
as you well know i fight for the type of trails we like to ride. some recent stuff i worked on

for example:
http://forums.mtbr.com/eastern-canada/nashville-tract-trail-project-796985.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/eastern-canada/palgrave-gets-more-fun-822419.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/eastern-canada/saturday-don-trail-build-repair-818737.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/eastern-canada/update-natural-environment-trail-strategy-815982.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/eastern-cana...-sat-22-september-call-volunteers-813952.html

I think it is about getting more trails we like to ride funded/built... It was a mistake we didn't get involved with the trail council from the beginning... if we just worked with the hikers outside of urban areas we will get nowhere fast. township councils are full of people who are aligned with trail council members (as well as their supporters) just as more urban areas are aligned with hiker groups... you have to adjust to the political landscape and not just bemoan the "oligarchical status quo" which is a dated approach...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top