Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74
  1. #1
    Thread Killer
    Reputation: crossboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    470

    Relocation on Lookout Mountain, VA

    Just came across this on the interwebs:

    Photo by chrisscottistan • Instagram

    Dear lawd, looks like they're using machines to build trail.

    I dare any one of you to say Chris Scott is "not a rider," or doesn't know good trail.

    Oh, wait. That's Virginia. It won't work in Pisgah.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: extrmtao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,271
    It should be closed.

    Is it a flow trail?

    Is it excellent?

    I don't like this one bit.
    BS'ing less, riding more.

    Supporting PAS
    Upstate SORBA
    SORBA

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,972
    That is the TD crew working. Project is on USFS lands but funded by the local bike club using RTP funds. Because the club got the grant$ they have more control over what gets built. This is the 3rd TD project working with the bike club there and all feedback from past projects has been all good.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by crossboy View Post
    Just came across this on the interwebs:

    Photo by chrisscottistan • Instagram

    Dear lawd, looks like they're using machines to build trail.

    I dare any one of you to say Chris Scott is "not a rider," or doesn't know good trail.

    Oh, wait. That's Virginia. It won't work in Pisgah.
    Gawd! You F'ing pot stirrer!!

  5. #5
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    I'm not sure I get it. Inside joke? It's machine built, looks machine built, likely rides like a machine built trail. And woody makes money doing it. Did I miss something?

  6. #6
    Rogue Exterminator
    Reputation: kjlued's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    3,855
    Are there bees on that trail?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: 2bfluid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    488
    Yeah it seems that since they keep inviting Trail Dynamics back to make more trail, then they must be getting good feedback.

    Everyone seems to be a purist about hand built trail and finishing, right up until its time to goto work and make it happen.

    There is plenty of room in the forest for machine work. Especially with the lack of a budget. But I like the minimal approach for Pisgah.

    A trail machine with a skilled operator can clear some nicks, clean outs, and do some light de-bermming in a fraction of the time that a mccloed can.

    The work on Avery could have been done in a day with a machine rather than a crew for 4? work days. With the same results.

    Just because there is a machine involved doesn't make it dirty. The operator holds the power.

    Most trail systems are thrilled to have TD do work. Its just here that I hear the complaints. If they only had PNF for a backyard then they could complain too.

    It seems that most folks who want PNF not to change better start praying and advocating to dispute the USFS standards at the local level. I am not sure they will listen, and just look you in the eye and say, "What part of MULTI-USER don't you understand."

    I want to keep the character and the technicality of PNF. But in the big picture some definitions are going to have be changed or trumped. Or PNF will get standardized with time.
    He/she who works the trails does so in their own image, NOT YOURS.

    Speed just slows me down...

  8. #8
    drunken pirate
    Reputation: driftwood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    Everyone seems to be a purist about hand built trail and finishing, right up until its time to goto work and make it happen.
    I'll go do handwork without a problem but have zero interest in participating in machine built trail work. It is a selfish stance but I don't like hearing machines in the woods.

    A trail machine with a skilled operator can clear some nicks, clean outs, and do some light de-bermming in a fraction of the time that a mccloed can.

    The work on Avery could have been done in a day with a machine rather than a crew for 4? work days. With the same results.
    Yep, you are right. The work on Buckhorn Gap, that has taken four work days and still is not getting water off the trail, could have been done with a machine in a few hours.


    It seems that most folks who want PNF not to change better start praying and advocating to dispute the USFS standards at the local level. I am not sure they will listen, and just look you in the eye and say, "What part of MULTI-USER don't you understand."
    I'm all for disputing those standards. I really think we need to examine what makes our trail system so special and then figure out how to successfully maintain it. Plowing everything over with a machine is just going to make it all the exact same thing. We already have Dupont.

    Have you talked to the FS about this? I have. I was surprised how in line my views are with the FS trail guy's. We both believe in maintainability and not sustainability (whatever that is)

    I want to keep the character and the technicality of PNF. But in the big picture some definitions are going to have be changed or trumped. Or PNF will get standardized with time.
    Yes! Let's please work on this big picture!




    Machines are not inherently bad. But they don't have to be the only way trail work is done. That attitude has to change.

    And here is a very tough question about machine built trail work: Can anyone show me a machine built trail in our area that is 'sustainable'? From what I have seen, mainly in Dupont, is that machine built trails actually need more maintenance and resources. Ridgeline is rerouted every other year, Airstrip needs tweaking every year, a whole lot of trails in Dupont were completely regraded last year. If machine built trails are so great why do they need so much work?

    Eventually we are going to have to start trying to get hand tools up into the difficult terrain in Pisgah to do the hard work by hand. Black mtn. is in very bad shape in places and other trails aren't very far behind. We might never be able to get a machine up there. We might want to consider just sucking it up and doing it by hand instead of waiting. Unless, of course, our goal is to get PTBs contracts...
    More Trails, Not Less

    Adventures in Pisgah

  9. #9
    H8 H8 H8
    Reputation: Broussard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by 2bfluid View Post
    It seems that most folks who want PNF not to change better start praying and advocating to dispute the USFS standards at the local level. I am not sure they will listen, and just look you in the eye and say, "What part of MULTI-USER don't you understand."

    I want to keep the character and the technicality of PNF. But in the big picture some definitions are going to have be changed or trumped. Or PNF will get standardized with time.
    It's a given that PNF trails are in dire need of maintenance and that there are severe resource constraints. Am I to believe the the USFS will refuse to allow/endorse any trail work that makes the trail incrementally better if it does not also return the trail to compliance with the standards?

    The ranger wouldn't let us go out and turn water off the trail and do minor rock work in such a fashion as MOUNTAIN BIKERS see fit, just because we were not also reverting the trail to pack and saddle standards at the same time? These trails are already wildly out of compliance with standards. Cyclists would not be allowed to make them marginally better or even just take action to stem their deterioration?

    I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, and I suspect the ranger would LOVE to have a group out there performing simple maintenance oriented activities. So I don't get the focus on machine built corridor and "Pack and Saddle" "Pack and Saddle" "Pack and Saddle".

    You guys complain about people not showing up to work. When MTBers show up and are made to work to "Pack and Saddle" standards, many of them are not going to be happy. That's great that you are into "flow". Can you understand that many of us are not? That many of us would sooner walk away from Pisgah than contribute towards making it all look like Bracken? That we have as much right to our opinion as you to yours? Listen to me very carefully, I'm going to tell you a secret..... PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU WORK ON THE TRAIL IF THAT WORK MAKES THE TRAIL *WORSE* IN THEIR EYES.

    The last time I did any organized trail work, I heard a nice little homily about how hand work was too hard and nobody showed up so it couldn't be done. A little later that day after my wife and I grubbed out a hundred feet or so of trail by hand, a certain guy we all know and love graded right over all of it with the machine. Tell me, why should I support that? Seriously. Don't threaten me with closures. If you guys succeed in making Ranger District look like DuPont, Bracken, and FATS, I'm simply going to pack up and go find better riding elsewhere anyway. You cannot brow-beat people into acting contrary to their own self interests. PAS needs to either find a way to accommodate the desires of people who want narrow gnarly tech, or they need to marginalize them completely and move on to actively ignoring them.

    You guys are no longer telling any of us anything that we don't not already know about standards and multi-use and water quality. Repeating yourself for the 9237th time isn't going to do anything. If you want our support, you will need to work towards accommodating our interests. Otherwise, don't get all huffy when we don't show up. It's that simple. There is no hate or animosity involved. This is not about laziness. Expressing a vision for the trails that is different than yours is not whining and complaining - it's simply having an opinion. And I will remind you that Pisgah has become famous because of narrow gnarly singletrack, not "flow". Is the very flavor that has made Pisgah so loved not worth trying to preserve? Even the ranger must realize this, surely...
    Yeah, it's strange. But oh well.

  10. #10
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Broussard View Post
    It's a given that PNF trails are in dire need of maintenance and that there are severe resource constraints. Am I to believe the the USFS will refuse to allow/endorse any trail work that makes the trail incrementally better if it does not also return the trail to compliance with the standards?

    The ranger wouldn't let us go out and turn water off the trail and do minor rock work in such a fashion as MOUNTAIN BIKERS see fit, just because we were not also reverting the trail to pack and saddle standards at the same time? These trails are already wildly out of compliance with standards. Cyclists would not be allowed to make them marginally better or even just take action to stem their deterioration?

    I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, and I suspect the ranger would LOVE to have a group out there performing simple maintenance oriented activities. So I don't get the focus on machine built corridor and "Pack and Saddle" "Pack and Saddle" "Pack and Saddle".

    You guys complain about people not showing up to work. When MTBers show up and are made to work to "Pack and Saddle" standards, many of them are not going to be happy. That's great that you are into "flow". Can you understand that many of us are not? That many of us would sooner walk away from Pisgah than contribute towards making it all look like Bracken? That we have as much right to our opinion as you to yours? Listen to me very carefully, I'm going to tell you a secret..... PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU WORK ON THE TRAIL IF THAT WORK MAKES THE TRAIL *WORSE* IN THEIR EYES.

    The last time I did any organized trail work, I heard a nice little homily about how hand work was too hard and nobody showed up so it couldn't be done. A little later that day after my wife and I grubbed out a hundred feet or so of trail by hand, a certain guy we all know and love graded right over all of it with the machine. Tell me, why should I support that? Seriously. Don't threaten me with closures. If you guys succeed in making Ranger District look like DuPont, Bracken, and FATS, I'm simply going to pack up and go find better riding elsewhere anyway. You cannot brow-beat people into acting contrary to their own self interests. PAS needs to either find a way to accommodate the desires of people who want narrow gnarly tech, or they need to marginalize them completely and move on to actively ignoring them.

    You guys are no longer telling any of us anything that we don't not already know about standards and multi-use and water quality. Repeating yourself for the 9237th time isn't going to do anything. If you want our support, you will need to work towards accommodating our interests. Otherwise, don't get all huffy when we don't show up. It's that simple. There is no hate or animosity involved. This is not about laziness. Expressing a vision for the trails that is different than yours is not whining and complaining - it's simply having an opinion. And I will remind you that Pisgah has become famous because of narrow gnarly singletrack, not "flow". Is the very flavor that has made Pisgah so loved not worth trying to preserve? Even the ranger must realize this, surely...
    Amen. This pretty much sums it up.

  11. #11
    Thread Killer
    Reputation: crossboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I'm not sure I get it. Inside joke? It's machine built, looks machine built, likely rides like a machine built trail. And woody makes money doing it. Did I miss something?
    So let me explain.

    This is Chris Scott: Mountain Bike Virginia - Shenandoah Mountain Touring - Mountain Bike Tours - Bike Virginia - Cycling Tours - Singletrack Tours - Bicycle Touring - Mountain Bike Touring

    This is Chris Scott: Climb Every Mountain, Ford Every Stream | Virginia Bicycling Federation

    As Woody pointed out, this is the third time TD has been invited to work on their trails. You obviously haven't ridden their work -- if Chris or any of the folks active in the mountain bike community up there were unhappy with it -- if it didn't meet their idea of an excellent experience -- they would not have invited TD back.

    Folks here like to point out how the the trails equate to the economic benefits of what makes this area attractive. I'll tell you straight up: I've ridden the trails Chris champions, I've ridden the stuff TD has done in the more recent past up there, and I gladly contribute my tourist dollars to Harrisonburg, VA. Chris is living the economic development side of it, not just talking about it, and believe me, those trails are not DuPont and they're not Bracken. And yeah -- they're multi-use.

    Oh, and one more thing: I challenge any one of you to try to keep up with Chris on a descent, anywhere in the Appalachians. This ain't no suit-and-tie bureaucrat we're talking about.

  12. #12
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,827
    Quote Originally Posted by crossboy View Post
    So let me explain.

    This is Chris Scott: Mountain Bike Virginia - Shenandoah Mountain Touring - Mountain Bike Tours - Bike Virginia - Cycling Tours - Singletrack Tours - Bicycle Touring - Mountain Bike Touring

    This is Chris Scott: Climb Every Mountain, Ford Every Stream | Virginia Bicycling Federation

    As Woody pointed out, this is the third time TD has been invited to work on their trails. You obviously haven't ridden their work -- if Chris or any of the folks active in the mountain bike community up there were unhappy with it -- if it didn't meet their idea of an excellent experience -- they would not have invited TD back.

    Folks here like to point out how the the trails equate to the economic benefits of what makes this area attractive. I'll tell you straight up: I've ridden the trails Chris champions, I've ridden the stuff TD has done in the more recent past up there, and I gladly contribute my tourist dollars to Harrisonburg, VA. Chris is living the economic development side of it, not just talking about it, and believe me, those trails are not DuPont and they're not Bracken. And yeah -- they're multi-use.

    Oh, and one more thing: I challenge any one of you to try to keep up with Chris on a descent, anywhere in the Appalachians. This ain't no suit-and-tie bureaucrat we're talking about.
    I know who he is. I still feel like missing something. What does all this have to do with Pisgah?

  13. #13
    H8 H8 H8
    Reputation: Broussard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by mbmb65 View Post
    I know who he is. I still feel like missing something. What does all this have to do with Pisgah?
    Step 1 - Chris Scott is faster than you.
    Step 2 - ?????
    Step 3 - Machine built trails!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Yeah, it's strange. But oh well.

  14. #14
    Thread Killer
    Reputation: crossboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Broussard View Post
    It's a given that PNF trails are in dire need of maintenance and that there are severe resource constraints. Am I to believe the the USFS will refuse to allow/endorse any trail work that makes the trail incrementally better if it does not also return the trail to compliance with the standards?

    The ranger wouldn't let us go out and turn water off the trail and do minor rock work in such a fashion as MOUNTAIN BIKERS see fit, just because we were not also reverting the trail to pack and saddle standards at the same time? These trails are already wildly out of compliance with standards. Cyclists would not be allowed to make them marginally better or even just take action to stem their deterioration?

    I find that extraordinarily hard to believe, and I suspect the ranger would LOVE to have a group out there performing simple maintenance oriented activities. So I don't get the focus on machine built corridor and "Pack and Saddle" "Pack and Saddle" "Pack and Saddle".

    You guys complain about people not showing up to work. When MTBers show up and are made to work to "Pack and Saddle" standards, many of them are not going to be happy. That's great that you are into "flow". Can you understand that many of us are not? That many of us would sooner walk away from Pisgah than contribute towards making it all look like Bracken? That we have as much right to our opinion as you to yours? Listen to me very carefully, I'm going to tell you a secret..... PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU WORK ON THE TRAIL IF THAT WORK MAKES THE TRAIL *WORSE* IN THEIR EYES.

    The last time I did any organized trail work, I heard a nice little homily about how hand work was too hard and nobody showed up so it couldn't be done. A little later that day after my wife and I grubbed out a hundred feet or so of trail by hand, a certain guy we all know and love graded right over all of it with the machine. Tell me, why should I support that? Seriously. Don't threaten me with closures. If you guys succeed in making Ranger District look like DuPont, Bracken, and FATS, I'm simply going to pack up and go find better riding elsewhere anyway. You cannot brow-beat people into acting contrary to their own self interests. PAS needs to either find a way to accommodate the desires of people who want narrow gnarly tech, or they need to marginalize them completely and move on to actively ignoring them.

    You guys are no longer telling any of us anything that we don't not already know about standards and multi-use and water quality. Repeating yourself for the 9237th time isn't going to do anything. If you want our support, you will need to work towards accommodating our interests. Otherwise, don't get all huffy when we don't show up. It's that simple. There is no hate or animosity involved. This is not about laziness. Expressing a vision for the trails that is different than yours is not whining and complaining - it's simply having an opinion. And I will remind you that Pisgah has become famous because of narrow gnarly singletrack, not "flow". Is the very flavor that has made Pisgah so loved not worth trying to preserve? Even the ranger must realize this, surely...
    Thanks Broussard. Good questions, good points.

    I was good with trying to explain some things, offer some education, and yes, even accommodate other views on other threads until the lying started. That's when I shut off. So to that end, I believe we should accommodate interests only insofar as reasoned discourse is concerned, and when it devolves into self-serving, willfully inaccurate vitriol, the conversation should end.

    In this case, you do ask some good questions. First, let me say I don't get huffy -- while I would prefer that we work together, quite frankly I don't care whether you show up to a work day or not. If you are not interested in supporting the work the organization agrees to take on in partnership with our land managers, then your time is better spent elsewhere. I've managed volunteers way too long to think I can change your mind in the midst of asking you to do labor you're not already in agreement with.

    This may sound radical coming from someone who has also stated he's interested in building a stronger organization, but I firmly believe that as we better define our vision and partnerships in the community, we will attract more than lose -- more people, more money, more opportunities. That's my interest in that regards. It does not mean I will ignore other voices, but I'm also not going to try to browbeat you into changing your mind.

    So what of your initial questions? I believe in a strong partnership with the USFS and other land managers. I believe that partnership will help us move forward on an agenda I think we can all agree upon -- more access, more opportunities, "better" trails. What is "better?" That depends. As we know by now, the definition is ephemeral, it's just out of reach. But it's there, and we know it when we see it. And some of us are constructively trying to put some words to it, so we can better talk about it in the future in a way that helps guide us.

    One thing that most all of us agree on, though, is that "better" means moving water off the trails. That is what the Forest Service has asked its volunteer groups to do, and PAS has affirmed and reaffirmed that it is core to our trail work mission. Is there some latitude? To some extent, yes. It's not like the USFS is standing over our shoulder every time we cut a drain, and even between user groups there is a variety of techniques that are used -- some more effective than others.

    So in some regards, I suppose there can be incremental improvements made as you suggest. And it's natural that some of that is happening -- while we move to clear drains, we may or may not be cutting back brush to meet corridor standards. Is that the "reversion" to which you refer? Because here's the funny thing -- PAS hasn't done trimming work in ages; we've been focused on treadwork -- specifically, clearing drains -- and other groups are doing trimming out there, to the corridor standards set by the Forest Service. And the treadwork we're doing isn't "reverting" anything; it's within the defined corridors.

    And that's the crux, isn't it? Are you upset the Forest Service has standards for their trails? Should we ignore the guidelines set for us by a land manager? Or should we half-ass our work in order to not meet those standards? Or only focus on the few trails that are mountain bike designed use and ignore the rest? That seems to me to be a narrow-minded, self-serving way of doing things, particularly the latter, as that would limit us to having input on very few trails indeed.

    Like it or not, Pisgah trails are multi-use. In USFS parlance, that means in many cases they have a "designed use" for pack and saddle. Within that, there is interpretation -- pack and saddle can mean everything from Fletcher Creek to the drop on Horse Cove. Personally, and as an organization, I would like to see us have a hand in interpreting those standards on the ground, on as many trails as we can, and even implementing them, rather than to walk away and stand on some outdated principle that THOU SHALT NOT CHANGE. Because you know what? Pisgah is changing every day.

    And what of that? In our discussions with the Forest Service, we ask the question: What would you like to see us do? Is a reroute here more important than drain clearing there? Is this trail opportunity important to you?

    Is that wrong? Working with the land manager to define priorities? I thought that was the essence of "partnership?"

    Our Crew Leaders do have some latitude to determine their priorities with regards to maintenance opportunities, and while we develop guidelines as an organization -- guidelines that are now under attack by some of the very people who ostensibly sought to contribute to them -- I'm comfortable with that. In the meantime, there's also a larger picture in play, a picture in which the Forest Service has "projects" on a long list they cannot fund, projects that we can help with. Or not. But I know that if we say "No" too many times, we lose our seat at the table, and I'm not about to let that happen. So when the Forest Service says to PAS, "would you like to help us solve this resource issue?" I'm going to say yes, if I believe we can help. And if you don't agree with that choice, then please, by all means, don't contribute. If that makes you feel marginalized, well, again -- this is not the organization for you. But don't for once think we make these choices without considering their implications for all users, including you -- ADD/EDIT: and the implications for the organization, including the opportunity costs involved.

    So if you're interested, please do give the Pisgah District Ranger a call and explain what you'd like to do. He's a reasonable fellow, and I'm sure he'd listen. But don't be surprised if he also asks if you're willing to pitch in on multi-use trails that are, by definition, for multiple users, and explains that resource management (read: watershed management) trumps trail character every time. As much as he and his staff value an excellent experience in the woods, they are bound by their mandate as Rangers in the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. There's only so much variance you're going to find there.

    See you on the trail.
    Last edited by crossboy; 09-28-2012 at 08:47 AM. Reason: adding a thought

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Snototter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by crossboy View Post
    Thanks Broussard. Good questions, good points.

    I was good with trying to explain some things, offer some education, and yes, even accommodate other views on other threads until the lying started. That's when I shut off. So to that end, I believe we should accommodate interests only insofar as reasoned discourse is concerned, and when it devolves into self-serving, willfully inaccurate vitriol, the conversation should end.

    In this case, you do ask some good questions. First, let me say I don't get huffy -- while I would prefer that we work together, quite frankly I don't care whether you show up to a work day or not. If you are not interested in supporting the work the organization agrees to take on in partnership with our land managers, then your time is better spent elsewhere. I've managed volunteers way too long to think I can change your mind in the midst of asking you to do labor you're not already in agreement with.

    This may sound radical coming from someone who has also stated he's interested in building a stronger organization, but I firmly believe that as we better define our vision and partnerships in the community, we will attract more than lose -- more people, more money, more opportunities. That's my interest in that regards. It does not mean I will ignore other voices, but I'm also not going to try to browbeat you into changing your mind.

    So what of your initial questions? I believe in a strong partnership with the USFS and other land managers. I believe that partnership will help us move forward on an agenda I think we can all agree upon -- more access, more opportunities, "better" trails. What is "better?" That depends. As we know by now, the definition is ephemeral, it's just out of reach. But it's there, and we know it when we see it. And some of us are constructively trying to put some words to it, so we can better talk about it in the future in a way that helps guide us.

    One thing that most all of us agree on, though, is that "better" means moving water off the trails. That is what the Forest Service has asked its volunteer groups to do, and PAS has affirmed and reaffirmed that it is core to our trail work mission. Is there some latitude? To some extent, yes. It's not like the USFS is standing over our shoulder every time we cut a drain, and even between user groups there is a variety of techniques that are used -- some more effective than others.

    So in some regards, I suppose there can be incremental improvements made as you suggest. And it's natural that some of that is happening -- while we move to clear drains, we may or may not be cutting back brush to meet corridor standards. Is that the "reversion" to which you refer? Because here's the funny thing -- PAS hasn't done trimming work in ages; we've been focused on treadwork -- specifically, clearing drains -- and other groups are doing trimming out there, to the corridor standards set by the Forest Service. And the treadwork we're doing isn't "reverting" anything; it's within the defined corridors.

    And that's the crux, isn't it? Are you upset the Forest Service has standards for their trails? Should we ignore the guidelines set for us by a land manager? Or should we half-ass our work in order to not meet those standards? Or only focus on the few trails that are mountain bike designed use and ignore the rest? That seems to me to be a narrow-minded, self-serving way of doing things, particularly the latter, as that would limit us to having input on very few trails indeed.

    Like it or not, Pisgah trails are multi-use. In USFS parlance, that means in many cases they have a "designed use" for pack and saddle. Within that, there is interpretation -- pack and saddle can mean everything from Fletcher Creek to the drop on Horse Cove. Personally, and as an organization, I would like to see us have a hand in interpreting those standards on the ground, on as many trails as we can, and even implementing them, rather than to walk away and stand on some outdated principle that THOU SHALT NOT CHANGE. Because you know what? Pisgah is changing every day.

    And what of that? In our discussions with the Forest Service, we ask the question: What would you like to see us do? Is a reroute here more important than drain clearing there? Is this trail opportunity important to you?

    Is that wrong? Working with the land manager to define priorities? I thought that was the essence of "partnership?"

    Our Crew Leaders do have some latitude to determine their priorities with regards to maintenance opportunities, and while we develop guidelines as an organization -- guidelines that are now under attack by some of the very people who ostensibly sought to contribute to them -- I'm comfortable with that. In the meantime, there's also a larger picture in play, a picture in which the Forest Service has "projects" on a long list they cannot fund, projects that we can help with. Or not. But I know that if we say "No" too many times, we lose our seat at the table, and I'm not about to let that happen. So when the Forest Service says to PAS, "would you like to help us solve this resource issue?" I'm going to say yes, if I believe we can help. And if you don't agree with that choice, then please, by all means, don't contribute. If that makes you feel marginalized, well, again -- this is not the organization for you. But don't for once think we make these choices without considering their implications for all users, including you -- ADD/EDIT: and the implications for the organization, including the opportunity costs involved.

    So if you're interested, please do give the Pisgah District Ranger a call and explain what you'd like to do. He's a reasonable fellow, and I'm sure he'd listen. But don't be surprised if he also asks if you're willing to pitch in on multi-use trails that are, by definition, for multiple users, and explains that resource management (read: watershed management) trumps trail character every time. As much as he and his staff value an excellent experience in the woods, they are bound by their mandate as Rangers in the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. There's only so much variance you're going to find there.

    See you on the trail.



    Amen, this absolutely sums it up!

  16. #16
    dead weight
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    692
    I've ridden that trail several times and don't like what I'm seeing in the pic linked above. A long time ago somebody posted pictures of where they wanted to reroute and the reroute went through outcrops and boulders and would have been an interesting trail. It sucks to lose a rugged trail. I think there could have been a sustainable reroute which wasn't essentially a dirt sidewalk.
    A bunch of my ride pics: http://uberfarm.com/mnf

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,972
    1.First (and formost), you don't have to like the what you see in the photo. The local club does like what is happening and they are the ones funding the project. The FS asked the local club to relocate portions of the trail that were not sustainable and the club chased down the RTP funds to do the project so they could control the final product. The local club designed the relocation and they had direct control on the contractor they wanted to work with.

    2. The alignment does in fact go through a lot of rock outcrops and boulders. Perhaps the flag line that you saw photos of is in fact what is being built. I saw a photo this week of running a rock breaker on our mini-ex and the trail was being routed right though a section of major rock.




    Quote Originally Posted by JackFromNC View Post
    I've ridden that trail several times and don't like what I'm seeing in the pic linked above. A long time ago somebody posted pictures of where they wanted to reroute and the reroute went through outcrops and boulders and would have been an interesting trail. It sucks to lose a rugged trail. I think there could have been a sustainable reroute which wasn't essentially a dirt sidewalk.

  18. #18
    dead weight
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    692
    No ****, I realize I'm not required to like something, hence my response. Just because the local club likes it and acquired the funds doesn't mean the reroute is a good thing. Trail building companies are profiting from this stuff. It's no surprise they lobby hard to preserve RTP grants and defend this type of work. Does this all boil down to money? The rugged trails are being diluted based on claims of sustainability. In my opinion, the problem areas for this particular trail could have been dealt with without making a 3 foot wide dirt sidewalk. Maybe that wouldn't be cost effective though.
    A bunch of my ride pics: http://uberfarm.com/mnf

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,972
    "Just because the local club likes it and acquired the funds doesn't mean the reroute is a good thing."

    What then constitutes "a good thing"? The land manager wants the work done, the locals who ride the trail all the time want the work done, and they have a great influence in the design and the contractor selected for the work, what more is needed to make a reroute a good thing?

    "Trail building companies are profiting from this stuff. " I take delivery of my new Porsche next week, can't wait to red-line it on the Blue Ridge Parkway. Seriously, trail contracting is not an easy way to eek out a living. None of us are getting rich. What we are doing however is providing a service that many ask for and in the process providing jobs in an area where good jobs are hard to come by. The work is hard (but rewarding), and we travel away from home (which is tough) a lot to get enough work to keep the crew employed. Along the way we build a lot of trail that is indeed enjoyed by many.

    Yes, we think RTP is an important program as many (most) land managers don't have sufficient budgets for trails. RTP has brought many new mtn biking opportunities across the SE and US. This fall 7 new miles of trail will open to bikes on WCU owned land, and you don't have to be a student or staff to enjoy these new trails. Next year new trails will be built in Lake Lure giving another new venue close to Aville. SC will get its first bike park at Gateway park in TR. All these projects are funded partly with RTP $.


    " In my opinion, the problem areas for this particular trail could have been dealt with without making a 3 foot wide dirt sidewalk."

    You have seen 1 photo. I was in a courtroom this week serving as an expert in a trail related lawsuit. The plaintiffs expert testified that a structure on the trail (where the accident happened) "sent shivers up his spine". When the defense cross examined him, it came out he had never been to the site of the accident and never been to the camp property, he had only seen photos from plaintiffs council. And yet he was given an opinion that the structure "sends shivers up his spine" and was for sure the cause of the accident. Needless to say, the jury was not impressed.
    Last edited by Woodman; 10-01-2012 at 07:51 AM.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    156
    I'll take your challenge Crossboy. I know the Burg crew and their riding styles, they'd quickly remind you that you ride a bike like a girl. A silly, braided girl.

    I'm with Broussard. Machines have no business in the woods.

  21. #21
    H8 H8 H8
    Reputation: Broussard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by park baker View Post
    I'll take your challenge Crossboy. I know the Burg crew and their riding styles, they'd quickly remind you that you ride a bike like a girl. A silly, braided girl.

    I'm with Broussard. Machines have no business in the woods.
    If you want to get into ad-hominem and d^ck-waving, you are not with me. Despite what many think, I'm trying to facilitate dialog and express what I think is a popular point of view... not sling sh^t.

    But yeah, you ride a bike much better than me, OK?
    Yeah, it's strange. But oh well.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    60
    I think it has as much to do with the type and size of machine used and the operator's aesthetic as the forest service spec.Dozers build better flow trails excavators build better tech trails.New trails will tighten up over time as the line is worn in.And that will happen a lot faster on a 40" bench cut trail than on a 14' wide extraction road.The picture below is a 40" wide excavator built rock garden it's about 500' long the rocks average about 250# each.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Relocation on Lookout Mountain, VA-p6091261.jpg  


  23. #23
    Freeride Pabstist Church
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Smells Like Fish View Post
    I think it has as much to do with the type and size of machine used and the operator's aesthetic as the forest service spec.Dozers build better flow trails excavators build better tech trails.New trails will tighten up over time as the line is worn in.And that will happen a lot faster on a 40" bench cut trail than on a 14' wide extraction road.The picture below is a 40" wide excavator built rock garden it's about 500' long the rocks average about 250# each.
    So you're the guy who stole all those from Pilot Rock?
    I reserve the right to make fun of your beliefs if I think they are stupid.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    60
    Nope those rocks are from fletcher creek and squirrel gap.The rocks from pilot I'm selling to the Nantahala ranger district.The proceeds from which I will use to build a log skinny from smokers cove to Dupont.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: D.F.L.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,765
    If you haven't spent a lot of time riding the trails Chris Scott rides regularly, you might not have the whole picture.

    A Flow trail would be a nice change from the trail they have along I-81.

    I promise you that if the majority of their trail was machine-built, non-techy trail, they would revolt.

    We need a revolution in machine-built trail; it's all too similar.
    I am ByStickel
    ByStickel Facebook Please take a look.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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