• 11-21-2012
    Enduramil
    National Parks and MTBing... report
  • 11-22-2012
    garage monster
    Saved and filed for later use. Thanks! :)
  • 11-23-2012
    singlesprocket
    it's a little out of date and from new zealand... i couldn't use that in an advocacy meeting if my life depended on it.
  • 11-23-2012
    Enduramil
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by garage monster View Post
    Saved and filed for later use. Thanks! :)

    No problem.
  • 11-23-2012
    ray.vermette
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    it's a little out of date and from new zealand... i couldn't use that in an advocacy meeting if my life depended on it.

    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 Not that out of date....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
  • 11-23-2012
    garage monster
    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! :)
  • 11-23-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ray.vermette View Post
    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 Not that out of date....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

    i never said that the data was invalid, just that i couldn't use it in my advocacy work.

    the latest data is from 2005... most of it dates back to 1998 (and it is still another country)

    while there are some similarities each area is unique, with it's own set of politics, stake holders and enviromental mandates. the trap people fall into is thinking a blanket approach will work. you need more flexability and creativity.

    meh, really nothing new there... muncipalities/conservation/cities already have classification systems which can be ammended to include any changes or new developments. the fed/prov park systems seems very dated, hopefully they will catch up (really nothing ground shaking). there is more exciting stuff going on elsewhere...
  • 11-23-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by garage monster View Post
    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! :)

    here's a tip...

    go talk to scott at Parks, Forestry and Recreation : Natural Environment Trails Program
    (e-mail is there) and set up a meeting information session with the hca and the
    Natural Environment Trails Program
  • 11-23-2012
    garage monster
    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:
  • 11-23-2012
    Nerdgirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by garage monster View Post
    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"?
  • 11-23-2012
    Enduramil
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    i never said that the data was invalid, just that i couldn't use it in my advocacy work.

    the latest data is from 2005... most of it dates back to 1998 (and it is still another country)

    while there are some similarities each area is unique, with it's own set of politics, stake holders and enviromental mandates. the trap people fall into is thinking a blanket approach will work. you need more flexability and creativity.

    meh, really nothing new there... muncipalities/conservation/cities already have classification systems which can be ammended to include any changes or new developments. the fed/prov park systems seems very dated, hopefully they will catch up (really nothing ground shaking). there is more exciting stuff going on elsewhere...

    Your ignorance, prejudice, and insularity are unwelcome here.
  • 11-23-2012
    Enduramil
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ray.vermette View Post
    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.


    The problem here is that some are very close minded when it comes to ideas that come from outside of their province or country. Gets very old very quickly.
  • 11-23-2012
    ray.vermette
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    while there are some similarities each area is unique, with it's own set of politics, stake holders and enviromental mandates. the trap people fall into is thinking a blanket approach will work. you need more flexability and creativity.

    I agree.

    However, assuming each area is so unique and special that there is nothing of value that can be gleened from another organization's experience in another county in another time is another trap that people fall into.
  • 11-23-2012
    ray.vermette
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by garage monster View Post
    While we're on the topic, has anyone stumbled across any information on trail density?

    Not on trail density, but I stumbled upon another presention and document on the economic benefits of mountain bike trails at the IMBA site, if it helps:

    Economic Benefits of Mountain Bike Tourism | International Mountain Bicycling Association

    As they say: "Money talks". :D

    Cheers
  • 11-23-2012
    Circlip
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ray.vermette View Post
    However, assuming each area is so unique and special that there is nothing of value that can be gleened from another organization's experience in another county in another time is another trap that people fall into.

    Unless feet, hooves, and tires act upon a tread surface in a materially different manner than they did 10 or 20 years ago, the external studies referenced seem like valuable resources for many people who may need to deal with landowners, assuming those studies were done properly, which I have no comment on. There may be some landowners or conservation authorities who are way beyond that stage in terms of their process, but for other areas that sort of basic ground level information (pardon the pun) may be just what is needed to open the door to initial discussions.

    Old information to some, but perhaps new information to others.
  • 11-23-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by garage monster View Post
    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:

    once again check with scott, he's a great resource.
  • 11-23-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Unless feet, hooves, and tires act upon a tread surface in a materially different manner than they did 10 or 20 years ago, the external studies referenced seem like valuable resources for many people who may need to deal with landowners, assuming those studies were done properly, which I have no comment on. There may be some landowners or conservation authorities who are way beyond that stage in terms of their process, but for other areas that sort of basic ground level information (pardon the pun) may be just what is needed to open the door to initial discussions.

    Old information to some, but perhaps new information to others.

    what better on the ground information then networking/dialoguing with an innovative/interactive municipal entity that has a showcase project/program that it uses as a teaching tool for other municipalities/conservation authorities?
  • 11-23-2012
    Circlip
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    what better on the ground information then networking/dialoguing with an innovative/interactive municipal entity that has a showcase project/program that it uses as a teaching tool for other municipalities/conservation authorities?

    It's not a question of "what's better?" other than to say that more quality information from multiple, diverse sources typically is a helpful part of the process. You don't have to use the content if you don't feel it's useful for you, but it's just plain odd that you seem to feel a need to convince others not to value it.
  • 11-23-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    It's not a question of "what's better?" other than to say that more quality information from multiple, diverse sources typically is a helpful part of the process. You don't have to use the content if you don't feel it's useful for you, but it's just plain odd that you seem to feel a need to convince others not to value it.

    sure it is. you want to use the best possible resources that are available to give the best possible results... my advice is based on my experiences and committee work. it might have value, or not :thumbsup:
  • 11-26-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Your ignorance, prejudice, and insularity are unwelcome here.

    give rest a rest and keep your flame baiting in the pm's :thumbsup:
  • 11-26-2012
    Enduramil
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    give rest a rest and keep your flame baiting in the pm's :thumbsup:

    You know.. it's weak sauce to rep anymously right?
  • 11-26-2012
    SkidVicious
    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.
  • 11-27-2012
    singlesprocket
    you raise an interesting point...

    how do you measure imba's success in advocacy here in ontario?
  • 11-27-2012
    SkidVicious
    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.
  • 11-27-2012
    singlesprocket
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SkidVicious View Post
    how beautiful is that? trail users coming together instead of being divided and ruled against. more hands make light work.

    we have it here in ontario already... it's called the ontario trail alliance...

    Trail Services | Ontario Trails Council