Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 84
  1. #1
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610

    NORTH FORK BELLINGHAM. WA trail closures

    SUMMARY


    - North Fork is a trail network in Bellingham

    - Washington DNR is a state agency who owns the land

    - We want to keep the message positive.

    - No disrespect to DNR, but MTB is a healthy, low impact, legitimate form of recreation, and we should be able to do it on public land

    - DNR has a mandate to provide the public access to recreation on their land when it does not conflict with resource management (ie logging which is the main activity in North Fork)

    - DNR owns half the land in whatcom county, yet has no recreation areas.

    - Bellingham is world famous mtb destination, yet the only legal trails on public land are 5 hiking trails on Chuckanut.

    - DNR does not have money for recreation. We are not asking for money, simply a place to volunteer

    -

















    More here (PDF and Word)
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  2. #2
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    PR part 1

    The release----------

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    North Fork Nooksack user built trail closure, BELLINGHAM, WA



    Source: Whatcom Trails Co-Op News - Whatcom Trails CO-OP



    What is happening?

    Beginning on April 2nd the Washington State Department of Resources (DNR) will be decommissioning all user-built bike trails on Slide Mountain at the North Fork Nooksack in Whatcom County.



    The work, estimated to cost $23,000, will begin on April 2nd and will be done by the DNR and a crew from Washington Conservation Corps. Work will include closure signage, removal of larger structures, blocking and revegetating trail entrances, and a gate to block all motorized access to Slide Mountain.



    Starting April 7th, DNR law enforcement will be patrolling the area and riders found on the trails will receive a ticket of $120 the first time, and will be subject to arrest for trespassing the second time.



    Why is this happening?

    Whatcom Trails Co-op and Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance were informed of the trail decommissioning two weeks ago by DNR. At that time the explanation for the closure was that an individual from a motorized user group was insisting that if motorized use wasn’t allowed on Slide Mountain, then all unauthorized trails must be closed down.



    In an effort to learn more about DNR concerns and find a way to address them while keeping trails open, we arranged a meeting that was held Friday, March 23rd. What we heard from DNR was that there was no solution short of complete closure, a position which is made all the more difficult to accept given that much of this area is currently being logged—a scale of impact beyond anything non-motorized recreation could ever cause.



    The DNR was represented at the meeting by Region and Division staff and by the statewide recreation manager. The primary concerns expressed by DNR, and our responses, were:

    · Unauthorized Trail Construction – Certainly it is true that there are mountain bike trails on the hill and DNR has difficulty managing unauthorized trail areas. However, it is also true that there are hundreds or thousands of miles of unauthorized, non-motorized trails on DNR forests across the state and very little effort is made to decommission or enforce closures on those trails, even those with clear environmental impacts. It is important to note that there are no authorized areas to recreate on DNR land in Whatcom County. Unauthorized areas like North Fork are reflections of the huge unmet need for recreational access.

    · Structures – Most "structures" are simple bridges, built to span wet zones or creeks that were constructed in accordance with industry-leading trail building standards. We offered to decommission any structure that wasn't built to address sediment or erosion concerns.

    · Sediment / Erosion – The North Fork was closed to motorized use roughly 7 years ago because of heavy sediment runoff from the trails and four-wheeling in or near the North Fork of the Nooksack. Sediment transport is not a real issue for the trails constructed by mountain bikers because:

    1. We have no trails near the river.

    2. Our trails were specifically routed to avoid creeks and riparian zones wherever possible and were built sustainably to avoid erosion and reduce maintenance.

    3. When necessary, bridges were constructed from blowdown (not live trees) for spanning any small creeks or wet zones.

    4. Put simply, it would be difficult and unenjoyable to ride a mountain bike in such overtly muddy areas, resulting in a low-quality recreational experience and an obvious detrimental effect on the environment.

    · Popularity - Despite our attempts to keep the area from becoming widely known, it has become too popular. Riders are now coming not just from Bellingham but from across the state and even Canada - a testament to the quality of the trail network and the need for such human-powered recreational areas.



    What can you do?

    Whatcom County residents and business owners:

    If you live in Whatcom County and access to outdoor recreation is a quality of life issue for you, please contact the people listed below to voice your displeasure about this decision and ask them for an interim solution which keeps trails open while working towards a formal Recreational plan for the North Fork area.



    Seattle/Tacoma Mt. bikers:

    Contact DNR staff and Whatcom County Tourism and voice your displeasure with this decision and ask them for an interim solution to be determined while working towards a formal Recreational plan for the North Fork areas. Also, please let them know that you spend money at businesses in Bellingham and Whatcom County because of this trail network.



    Canadian riders:

    If you live in British Columbia and ride the North Fork, please email Whatcom County tourism, Whatcom County commissioner and Whatcom County council members letting them know that you ride the area and spend money at businesses in Bellingham and Whatcom County because of the trail network.





















    Contact Information

    Legislators:

    The area impacted is represented by legislators in the 40th and 42nd districts—if you are unsure which district you live in, you can look it up here: Find Your Legislator.



    40th District

    Senator Kevin Ranker

    kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov

    215 John A. Cherburg Building

    PO Box 40440

    Olympia, WA 98504-0442

    (360) 786-7678


    Rep. Kristine Lytton

    kristine.lytton@leg.wa.gov

    310 John L. O'Brien Building

    PO Box 40600

    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    (360) 786-7800


    Rep. Jeff Morris

    jeff.morris@leg.wa.gov

    436A Legislative Building

    PO Box 40600

    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    (360) 786-7970



    42nd District

    Senator Doug Ericksen

    doug.ericksen@leg.wa.gov

    414 Legislative Building

    PO Box 40442

    Olympia, WA 98504-0442

    (360) 786-7682


    Rep. Jason Overstreet

    jason.overstreet@leg.wa.gov

    422 John L. O'Brien Building

    PO Box 40600

    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    (360) 786-7980


    Rep. Vincent Buys

    vincent.buys@leg.wa.gov

    470 John L. O'Brien Building

    PO Box 40600

    Olympia, WA 98504-0600

    (360) 786-7854



    DNR Staff:

    · Peter Goldmark – DNR commissioner cpl@dnr.wa.gov or info@votepetergoldmark.com

    · Mark Mauren – Head of Recreation - mark.mauren@dnr.wa.gov

    · Steve Jennison – Baker District Manager - steve.jennison@dnr.wa.gov



    Whatcom County Executive:

    Jack Louws - JLouws@co.whatcom.wa.us



    Whatcom County Council:

    · Bill Knutzen - bknutzen@co.whatcom.wa.us

    · Kathy Kershner - kkershne@co.whatcom.wa.us

    · Ken Mann - kmann@co.whatcom.wa.us

    · Sam Crawford - scrawfor@co.whatcom.wa.us

    · Carl Weimer - cweimer@co.whatcom.wa.us

    · Barbara Brenner - bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us

    · Pete Kremen – pkremen@co.whatcom.wa.us



    Whatcom County Tourism:

    tourism@bellingham.org
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  3. #3
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    The release part 2

    Talking Points

    We are intentionally not crafting a form letter because they do not make the same impact as personal letters. If you care enough about the trails and the area, please take 10 minutes to write something and send it to the appropriate folks above.



    Your letter should state what you want and why, and should ask for a response. We've highlighted a set of goals below that you can use in your letter.



    This issue is a passionate one for many of us but remember that the goal is to change the outcome not to vent our anger and frustration. Please be honest but civil in your communications.



    IMPORTANT: To be even more effective, take an extra 5 minutes to also print out your emails, sign them and send a hard copy.



    The primary Issues:

    1. There are NO legal areas to recreate on DNR land in Whatcom County

    2. No planning process has begun to address recreation needs in Whatcom County despite our continued meetings with DNR over several years. We were the largest user group at all of the recreational planning meetings in Burlington.

    3. Closing the trails doesn’t address the issue, rather it disperses the use and creates additional management and enforcement issues.

    4. Trails will likely spring up in other areas.

    5. Using $22k for closing trails when that money could be better spent on planning or other items.



    Short-term goals:

    1. Continued access to the trail network.

    2. Conduct a full site evaluation to determine any non-essential structures that could be removed.

    3. Conduct a full site evaluation of any wetland or erosion issues. Sean Curran, a certified wetland delineator, has agreed to do a full site survey for Whatcom Trails Co-op pro bono. Curran Environmental Services

    4. Within a few months, we’d like to determine the framework to begin the recreational planning process so ALL recreationalists can gain formal authorization for this (and potentially other) area.



    Long-term goals:

    1. Complete the formal planning process for North Fork recreation for ALL users. This is the biggest issue and why there are user-built trails all over Whatcom County.

    2. Establish the ability to rebuild trails post harvest.



    Benefits:

    1. Mountain bikers are good stewards of the areas in which we recreate. We've held annual clean-up days in the area and removed tons of trash left by other users. Additionally, the presence of mountain bikers and other responsible users keeps undesirable users away.

    2. We’re a low maintenance user group.

    a. We have built and continually maintained high-quality trails, using volunteer labor and private funds.

    b. We close trails down if necessary during the wet season.

    c. Our trails and activities do not interfere with timber harvests. In fact we are one of the few groups that would chose to recreate in a working forest environment.

    3. Economic Benefit to local businesses

    a. Seven bike shops in Bellingham

    b. Two bike manufactures in Whatcom County (Transition and Kona).

    c. Restaurants and other businesses in Bellingham and Whatcom County get increased business from riders who use our trail network.

    4. Immediate access would provide a legitimate riding area and allow time for a larger planning process th
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    487
    Thanks for posting this, I have already written a letter, and sent it to everyone listed.

  5. #5
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    Please print out, sign and mail the letters too. It does make a difference.

    Anthony, sorry to have your post pulled a couple weeks ago, but we were hopeful we could work out a solution with DNR to no avail.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    That's some amazing work, the trestle blows me away.

    It's a complete shame that work has to be torn out, and it's really too bad the folk up at Whatcom DNR did not choose to take the leap to try to bridge the gap in this instance.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rdhfreethought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,533
    I'll grab some letterhead from work, and draft up something tomorrow. Probably from a health perspective. It's unbelievable that in today's world we have to council our patients that 'normal weight' is no longer the goal. Because the average person is obese, and there are so few anywhere near ideal body weight. (only Colorado has fewer overweight people than 'ideal' body weight--i.e. not fat). We have to tell them that they should not be like everyone else, they have to be the exception....that is, someone who is not fat.
    Regional Race Manager, Knolly Bikes
    Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    What set this off? An injury or the state putting pressure on the county because of the reconveyance problem?
    "It looks flexy"

  9. #9
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by gticlay View Post
    What set this off? An injury or the state putting pressure on the county because of the reconveyance problem?
    Clay, no injuries and no tie to the reconveyance at all. The formatting on this thread isn't helping this much.

    "Why is this happening?

    Whatcom Trails Co-op and Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance were informed of the trail decommissioning two weeks ago by DNR. At that time the explanation for the closure was that an individual from a motorized user group was insisting that if motorized use wasn’t allowed on Slide Mountain, then all unauthorized trails must be closed down."


    Repeatedly, a member of the ORV community has thrown mt. bikers under the bus despite us working closely with the local club (Rainier Ridge Rams). We've even received a letter of support from the RRR that they feel this is a terrible move.

    The elephant in the room is that there are ZERO places to legally recreate on DNR land in Whatcom County, so all user groups have carved out their own trail networks over the years.
    Mark Mauren and everyone in the table admitted such, but the reality is they've got no money to manage recreation in our area.

    EB

  10. #10
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Quote Originally Posted by ebxtreme View Post
    Mark Mauren and everyone in the table admitted such, but the reality is they've got no money to manage recreation in our area.
    Yet they've got a $23k budget to decommission bike trails?

    I'll save my comments for the letters....

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    They should fall under the recreational immunity in WA as long as they don't charge for use, correct? So.... what's the liability problem?
    "It looks flexy"

  12. #12
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    As with many agencies, it's the "threat" of legal action.....the DNR rarely go to court with a lawsuit. They settle. In the 6 years that mt. bikers have been riding the Fork, it's not had a legal issue.

    It is sad and ironic how the builders have attempted to keep the area on the DL (however futile) for so long, that the Fork is going public this way.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mr. Lynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,142
    It sounds like the issue to me is that instead of trying to accommodate all the different user groups in different ways, they would rather just ignore everyone and only deal with situations when people complain or other issues come up.

    They dont need to a lot of money or man power to "manage" the situation. That's where groups like Evergreen come into play. You allow groups access to different area, they manage the land within the guidelines set, and the DNR comes in every so often to make sure their guidelines are being followed. It seems to work fine in other counties.

  14. #14
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Honestly, what other user group builds stuff like this in the woods? Moto guys don't build supercross tracks in the woods, and hikers don't build this sort of stuff. Anyone that build what's in those pics and thought it would last is delusional. But, the offer to keep the trails, but remove all but the bridges needed for sediment or erosion issues sounds completely reasonable, and not at all unlike the user built hiking trails that DNR is spending $ on.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    I've received a message back from Council member Sam Crawford. He has introduced this resolution for Council to take a look at the next meeting. We will need to show our support. Please note, they will need to discuss and take a vote.
    Clayton


    SPONSORED: Crawford

    PROPOSED: Consent

    INTRODUCTION:


    RESOLUTION NO. ________

    REQUESTING THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO WORK WITH MOUNTAIN BIKE ADVOCATES AND USERS TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN CONTINUED USE OF MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS IN THE AREA OF THE NORTH FORK OF THE NOOKSACK RIVER


    WHEREAS, Whatcom County is endowed with an extensive forested mountainous landscape ideal for the pursuit of mountain biking, hiking, and other passive recreational activities; and

    WHEREAS, the available land that can be utilized for mountain biking is somewhat limited relative to the forested mountainous areas of the county because of ownership issues, conflicts with neighboring uses, and access to trail networks; and

    WHEREAS, Whatcom County has become recognized nationally as a mountain biking ‘mecca’, attracting world-class mountain bikers along with the associated economic input to our community’s prosperity; and

    WHEREAS, the significant local economic infrastructure supporting the recreation and sport of mountain biking continues to rely on availability of a variety of locations to engage in mountain bike activity; and

    WHEREAS, local mountain bike organizations already exist that have demonstrated the ability to organize and collectively to address trail construction, maintenance, self-policing and impact mitigation; and

    WHEREAS, the area of Whatcom County known as the North Fork of the Nooksack River has been developed by users over the past 20 years into a key location (along with Galbraith Mountain and the Chuckanuts) for mountain bike recreation and sport; and

    WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources has announced the upcoming closure of the North Fork of the Nooksack River to off-road mountain bike use; and

    WHEREAS, the activity of mountain biking as a recreation and a sport can be coordinated with other forest use priorities such as logging, hunting, hiking, winter recreation, fishing, fire prevention, and environmental stewardship to bring about enhancement and protection of the forest landscape for future generations; and

    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Whatcom County Council that we strongly encourage the Washington State Department of Natural Resources to withdraw its deadline to close the North Fork of the Nooksack River to off-road mountain bike use, and instead to engage and collaborate with mountain bike users and advocates in maintaining and continued development of a network of mountain bike trails in that area in a manner that is environmentally protective and compatible with other forest uses.


    ADOPTED this day of April, 2012.


    WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
    ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON




    Dana Brown-Davis, Clerk of the Council Kathy Kershner, Council Chair





    WHATCOM COUNTY EXECUTIVE
    WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
    APPROVED AS TO FORM:



    Civil Deputy Prosecutor Jack Louws, County Executive

    ( ) Approved ( ) Denied

    Date Signed: ____________________
    "It looks flexy"

  16. #16
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    This is formatted a bit better. Many, many thanks to Glenn Glover and Evergreen's support.

    North Fork Nooksack

  17. #17
    Squeaky Wheel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,287
    What makes no sense is that they have no budget for recreation, but can come up with $23K, staff time and enforcement time to squelch recreation.

    In reality, they don't need a budget for recreation - they just need to be willing to work with responsible user groups.

    I can only look at the situation that I am familiar with, and that is working with Sno Parks. We wanted to build trails and structures and they had no budget or staff, but were willing to work with us. We agreed on a set of build standards and committed them to drawings (thanks to the mad CAD skills of FM and Ortdd) that Sno Parks approved. Took little staff time. We raised the cash to buy tools and materials to build with and we provided the labor. Sno Parks did initial acceptance inspection, which took very little staff time. We worked with Sno Parks to develop a set of maintenance and inspection forms and we jointly perform a yearly inspection of everything we built. Takes a few staff hours every year. A small ongoing staff investment goes a long way.

    Trying to stop nnauthorized trail construction on that much land is like playing whack-a-mole. Best for the DNR to provided an agreed upon, legal outlet. Once you have legit building going on, those builders are going to police their own because they don't want to kill the golden goose.

    I'll be writing a letter this weekend. Good luck up there.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    365
    Great news about the Whatcom County Council voting on this!! Let's all be sure to get in touch and voice our support ASAP in the hopes that they will vote yes.

    Thanks for keeping us all updated on the latest.

  19. #19
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree View Post
    Honestly, what other user group builds stuff like this in the woods? Moto guys don't build supercross tracks in the woods, and hikers don't build this sort of stuff. Anyone that build what's in those pics and thought it would last is delusional. But, the offer to keep the trails, but remove all but the bridges needed for sediment or erosion issues sounds completely reasonable, and not at all unlike the user built hiking trails that DNR is spending $ on.
    I don't think anyone disagrees with this take Anthony. These are big boy features and a couple of them took a month+ to build like Thad's truss bridge. The builders and riders look at them as works of art, but any land manager is going to see nothing but liability. We 100% acknowledged some of the bigger features and told DNR we'd decommission/remove any of the non-essential structures.

    Ironically, the bulk of the structures/trails in those photos are in a zone that was logged in the Fall. So, those structures had trees felled on them during harvest and the trails are currently not rideable any longer....full clearcut. The same is going to happen to a few others in May.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Agreed Woodway. That's the way I have been looking at it too. This sounds so 10-15 years ago during the first go around locally at the Exits... And, the DNR saw where that got them and that's why we're at a better page down here now. Makes no sense at all. Writing my own as well. Keep the faith up there EB et al...

    Though I will say that I get the idea of saying no to everyone as well since that sort of thing also happened at Lord Hill a few years back too. Gub'ment agencies find that's the easy way out.

  21. #21
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    This sounds so 10-15 years ago during the first go around locally at the Exits... And, the DNR saw where that got them and that's why we're at a better page down here now. Makes no sense at all.
    Actually, we're no better in Seattle at our under-the-radar DH spots.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Meaning: At least the DNR "tolerates" them here. And, I'm no longer convincing a WTA trail crew at Trail College that, "Yes, we CAN ride down this and no, it doesn't need stairs..."

    I don't know who it's "Under the radar" to. All the players know and have known for years.

    I'll take the current Exit tolerance as a win compared to the NF fiasco.

  23. #23
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Meaning: At least the DNR "tolerates" them here. And, I'm no longer convincing a WTA trail crew at Trail College that, "Yes, we CAN ride down this and no, it doesn't need stairs..."

    I don't know who it's "Under the radar" to. All the players know and have known for years.

    I'll take the current Exit tolerance as a win compared to the NF fiasco.
    NF was tolerated just fine until a few weeks ago.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    44
    The answer here is obvious but difficult. Get the MTB trails redesignated as authorized, limited to such use, and official. I know at this point that is far easier to say than do. Sounds like there was a threat of a lawsuit. It can be argued this is what can happen to an area with "gray trails".
    This episode shows how the DNR failed to prempt such issues or be cooperative. Likewise the MTB groups in the area should have gained official status a long time ago to have legal trails in the area. But hey it takes two to tango as they say. The motorized user group person while not very admirable from our point of view is arguing a correct legal response to the situation. A selfish, undiplomatic, politically self-destructive response to be sure but strictly speaking a legal one. In essence the DNR feels it is now trapped since it failed to enforce (or chose to ignore) its own rules. Again the the DNR should have responded to the lack of recreation in the beginning by reaching out all of the user groups with a real plan to meet recreational needs.
    A question that comes to mind is why the short time line for action on the DNR's part? The unimaginatve action of closing all trails seems to be what the DNR thinks is easiest for the DNR. The citizens of this state deserve better than this.

  25. #25
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    ^^^combitool. The mtb groups were talking to DNR for 5 years. The discussions were kept quiet. Things seemed to be progressing until a short time ago till the head office told the regional office to shut things down - thus prompting this PR. EB - correct me if I'm wrong and I can edit
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    I guess that's what confuses me Lee. Years ago, the local Exit trails were dismantled by the DNR with help from the WTA. They were susequently rebuilt nearby and the DNR has since then (I am led to believe) looked the other way because it's easier just to let sleeping dogs lie than chase the builders and dismantle right after they build constantly. Is the area down here under the same juristiction? I agree with Juice that they "could" do the very same thing down here tomorrow if they wanted. But, don't understand why one area can be tolerated while another can't. More worried about precedent being easier to just shut everyone out than deal with portions of the user groups. It's the easy way out on their part. The whole thing sucks.

  27. #27
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    In Seattle, the two biggest I-90 DH spots are mostly on FS land, so it's a different land manager. The DNR in Seattle has been pretty aggressive at shutting down most user built trails from various user groups. The Mailbox peak hiking trail is a neon pink, glaring exception.

    Here's my take on why this went down on NF

    ** New regional forester. In DNR, the staff has a lot of discretion on how to manage recreation on the Trust forests. A new forester could simply have had a different point of view than the one who left. This is probably the single biggest risk to any user built trail - change in personnel.

    ** Death by success. There was lots of trail building, and lots of people riding there. It had gotten too big to fly under the radar for the land manager.

    ** DH and freeride trails and features are still really hard for a land manager to get their head around from a management and liability standpoint. Glenn from Evergreen has been working hard on changing this for several years. Our position is that case law shows the actual financial risk of lawsuit is minimal. Liability is a perception, not reality. Unfortunately, its a strongly and widely held perception. Turns out perception IS reality when dealing with a land manager.

    ** The moto guy. I personally think this had only minimal impact, and is mostly a red herring. I once again reference Mailbox Peak, an eroded, user-built hiking trail that is heavily used.


    Why am I going into this, when we should all be writing letters? Because these issues exist at other popular DH spots, and being aware of all of this can help us 1) keep existing DH spots accessible and 2) move towards legitimization of areas where its feasible.

  28. #28
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    I can't even guess at the reasoning of land managers Borneo. Potentially good news showing that the literally hundreds/thousands? of communications sent and received have made a difference coming down the pipe
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by juice View Post

    ** The moto guy. I personally think this had only minimal impact, and is mostly a red herring. I once again reference Mailbox Peak, an eroded, user-built hiking trail that is heavily used.
    i appreciate you bringing this up two-fold. If we can learn lessons as our own user-group and what we can control through our own decisions it's way better than to start a blame war against another user-group. Things have not gone well, and even though in reality it's not so cut and dray and there are many factors for why, welllll let's just blame them damn motos!!! RAAAH!
    Yah i'm not into that...

    The other is bringing up a specific example of a hiker built trail that currently exists. This particular topic we or perhaps just myself, could carry on about for a while about.(or blather on as a Borneo preference)

    i appreciate you taking the time to offer a transparent view on your opinions into the matter. Many folk will fire off the emails all the same regardless, but i think there are some folk that appreciate the added info and appreciate your take and your insight into it, as someone with past experience in these matters.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  30. #30
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    The DNR has been out staging materials for their upcoming work all week. Even if things are shut down on Monday, our hope is that this is the catalyst to a permanent solution.

    Per Juice, if you've not written to our legislators and Commissioner Goldmark and Mark Mauren, please do so. Thanks again.

    EB

  31. #31
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Here’s the info. for Mark Mauren and Peter Goldmark:


    PO Box 47000
    1111 Washington Street SE
    Olympia, WA 98504-7000
    Driving Directions



    Steve Jennison’s info.



    Steve Jennison

    Baker District Manager

    919 N. Township St.

    Sedro-Woolley, WA 98284

  32. #32
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    Good news PR just released. Keep the letters coming though. It worked to help delay the action and get dialogue going. Lets show that the mtb community really want to help

    PRESS RELEASE: OLYMPIA… Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, today sent a letter to Commissioner of Public Lands Peter Goldmark asking him to suspend the Department of Natural Resources’ plan to decommission the mountain-bike trail system on Slide Mountain at the North Fork Nooksack River. The work is set to begin Monday.

    The trail system, which is user-built, is not an authorized recreational area and off-road vehicle enthusiasts have insisted that if motorized-vehicle user groups are denied access, all access should be denied.

    Ericksen said “I have asked for time to review all documents related to the environmental and management problems perceived by DNR; communications with county officials, mountain-bike organizations, neighbors to the area and other interested parties; and any complaints regarding mountain-bike activities in the area.

    “I am very concerned about this proposed closure. I believe strongly that public lands should be as open and available as possible for public recreational activities.

    “There are no authorized recreational areas on DNR land in Whatcom County. The user-built mountain-bike trail system is a reflection of the need for such recreational opportunities.”
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    487
    From the Horse's mouth: DNR to close access to illegal and unauthorized mountain bike trails in northeastern Whatcom County

    TLDR; The DNR is committed to steadfast bureaucracy and the cessation of unauthorized fun on their managed land.

  34. #34
    North Van/Whistler
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,610
    damn-but maybe not so good news, edit same as vertr just posted

    DNR to close access to illegal and unauthorized mountain bike trails in northeastern Whatcom County

    NEWS RELEASE
    March 30, 2012
    DNR TO CLOSE ACCESS TO ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS IN NORTHEASTERN WHATCOM COUNTY
    Safety, Water Quality, And Protection Of State Trust Lands Key Reasons For Closure
    OLYMPIA – On Monday, April 2, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will begin closing access to illegal, unauthorized mountain bike trails and structures in the North Fork Nooksack forest block in northeastern Whatcom County. The trails were built without obtaining permission from DNR or county and state permits.
    Locals' Guide to North Shore Rides http://mtbtrails.ca/

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by LeeL View Post
    damn-but maybe not so good news, edit same as vertr just posted

    DNR to close access to illegal and unauthorized mountain bike trails in northeastern Whatcom County

    NEWS RELEASE
    March 30, 2012
    DNR TO CLOSE ACCESS TO ILLEGAL AND UNAUTHORIZED MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS IN NORTHEASTERN WHATCOM COUNTY
    Safety, Water Quality, And Protection Of State Trust Lands Key Reasons For Closure
    OLYMPIA – On Monday, April 2, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will begin closing access to illegal, unauthorized mountain bike trails and structures in the North Fork Nooksack forest block in northeastern Whatcom County. The trails were built without obtaining permission from DNR or county and state permits.
    Anyone know if a Democrat can challenge another Democrat for the Commissioner of public lands position?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    First, we have the upcoming resolution from the County Council asking DNR to wait (everyone needs to show up at the meeting April 10)
    Second, we have a great letter from Sen. Ericksen asking DNR to wait.

    Third, I spoke to Mr. Jennison on the phone late today to make sure he has read the proposed Council resolution. He was polite and hadn't heard of it, but sounded very interested in finding out what the County Council thought about the issue. The letter from Sen. Ericksen will help as well (a lot IMO).

    I invited Mr. Goldmark, Jennison, and Mauren to attend the April 10 meeting. Hopefully all or some of them will be at the meeting.
    "It looks flexy"

  37. #37
    Squeaky Wheel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,287
    Safety, Water Quality, And Protection Of State Trust Lands Key Reasons For Closure
    Baloney.

    The trails were built without obtaining permission from DNR or county and state permits.
    Now we get to the heart of the matter. Control.

    Letter sent today.

  38. #38
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    Thanks to those that came up this weekend for one final shred. As always, it was awesome to see the HLC bro's presence both days: Largextracheese, Muttonchops, Juice, Huckabarryhound, Josh and crew. The weather and the occasion were less than ideal, but we didn't let it dampen the overall vibe.

    Work started yesterday to close off the trails, signage is being installed and a gate is going up.

    Reminder: If you've not written to Commissioner Goldmark and our legislators, PLEASE do so. We'd really like to determine both a short-term and long term solution to this. The overarching issue is there is zero place to legally recreate on DNR land in Whatcom County, so ALL users have created their own trail networks - not just mt. bikers.

    Cheers,
    EB

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,951
    Made the news on KUOW this morning.
    There's a big difference between ripping and skidding. Those who skid don't know how to ride.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    891
    Keep the pressure UP!
    2015 Santa Cruz Nomad III

    Moto Becane Roady

    2012 KTM 250 XC-W

    "Trying is the first step towards failure"

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    Today, whatcom county executive Jack Louws invited the DNR to attend the Whatcom County council meeting addressing this issue. This is good news because the council and executive, along with the support of senator ericksen are the most influential and powerful people we can possibly have looking into things. I hope the DNR chooses to attend.
    "It looks flexy"

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tarekith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,159
    Tarekith.com

    '12 RM Slayer70, i9 Torch, Flow EX, XT Brakes, 5050 s3.

  43. #43
    Justin Vander Pol
    Reputation: juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,595
    The press on this is a bummer. It just reiterates the unfounded fear of "$2.1 million dollar lawsuits". Case law? Anyone? Nope, didn't think so.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by juice View Post
    The press on this is a bummer. It just reiterates the unfounded fear of "$2.1 million dollar lawsuits". Case law? Anyone? Nope, didn't think so.
    There are a lot of pro-mtb comments on the Komo article. Considering the typical commenters, I find this surprising. The WA DNR is getting a lof of bad PR from this, but I'm not particularly sure that they have any incentive to act in response to it.

    The DNR keeps changing it's story, and Mauren seemed to pull the "2.1 million dollar" number right out of his ass on the spot.
    Last edited by Vertr; 04-04-2012 at 01:05 AM.

  45. #45
    i'm schralping yer thread
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    859
    DNR is obviously in full-on spin-control mode now. They may have underestimated how much political heat they were going to take on this and want to frame the issue to their advantage.

    And I'm also tired of this red-herring "liability" issue. It's simply not true. The public and private landowners are well immunized from injury lawsuits under RCW 4.24.210.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: flyxaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    244
    Name:  MotherHucker.jpg
Views: 554
Size:  93.6 KB

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    210

    DNR press release

    Press release on a Friday (March 30) for action taken on a Monday (April 2).

    Not even a single workday as far as public notice (to best of my knowledge, not sure if other announcements were made).

    DNR to close access to illegal and unauthorized mountain bike trails in northeastern Whatcom County

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: gticlay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    6,632
    Was just thinking... Maybe DNR really means: Do Not Recreate?
    "It looks flexy"

  49. #49

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    487
    Great, more spin. 'While we were destroying your trails with great justice, we took a minute to hear your pathetic pleas! Have hope you pathetic recreationalists.'

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •