NPS Approves Country Club Mountain Biking- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 39 of 39
  1. #1
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861

    NPS Approves Country Club Mountain Biking

    I gave it a week and not one post on this very important subject...

    It looks as if the National Park Service finally got around to approving
    mountain biking in National Parks, at least on dirt or gravel roads in National
    Parks. No trails for you! So, if your idea of mountain biking is country club
    trails, and as long as you do not ride 2 abreast, ride through tunnels, or
    have a beer in your hand while operating a bicycle, then this is your lucky
    day.


    Revised Bicycle Plan Allows Greater Access to National Parks

    The new NPS bicycle regulation:
    § 4.30 Bicycles.
    (a) The use of a bicycle is prohibited

    except on park roads, in parking areas

    VerDate Mar<15>2010 10:37 Sep 02, 2011 Jkt 223137 PO
    00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Q:\36\36V1.TXT ofr150
    PsN: PC150

    42
    § 4.31 36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–11 Edition)
    and on routes designated for bicycle
    use; provided, however, the superintendent

    may close any park road or
    parking area to bicycle use pursuant to
    the criteria and procedures of §§ 1.5 and
    1.7 of this chapter. Routes may only be
    designated for bicycle use based on a
    written determination that such use is
    consistent with the protection of a
    park area’s natural, scenic and aesthetic
    values, safety considerations
    and management objectives and will
    not disturb wildlife or park resources.

    (b) Except for routes designated in

    developed areas and special use zones,
    routes designated for bicycle use shall
    be promulgated as special regulations.

    (c) A person operating a bicycle is

    subject to all sections of this part that
    apply to an operator of a motor vehicle,
    except §§ 4.4, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.14.

    (d) The following are prohibited:
    (1) Possessing a bicycle in a wilderness
    area established by Federal statute.

    (2) Operating a bicycle during periods

    of low visibility, or while traveling
    through a tunnel, or between sunset
    and sunrise, without exhibiting on the
    operator or bicycle a white light or reflector
    that is visible from a distance
    of at least 500 feet to the front and with
    a red light or reflector visible from at
    least 200 feet to the rear.

    (3) Operating a bicycle abreast of another

    bicycle except where authorized
    by the superintendent.

    (4) Operating a bicycle while consuming

    an alcoholic beverage or carrying
    in hand an open container of an
    alcoholic beverage.


    Yes, I’m being a little harsh on the NPS. There are trails in some National
    Parks open to bikes. And the new regulation gives Park Superintendents
    more flexibility to open trails, let's hope they do, but really...
    why can't I ride my bike and drink a beer at the same time?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,231
    It's still OK to ride in the wilderness areas, isn't it?

  3. #3
    Pin it to win it
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    13
    This is great news. I've been following this for a little while now and I'm glad it went through.

    Oh, and Peaty, don't even go there.
    You pilot bikes better than you swing clubs.

  4. #4
    ..ouch
    Reputation: thump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,028

  5. #5
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,273
    no go for RMNP, they are all about maintaining the status quo.
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  6. #6
    bacon! bacon! bacon!
    Reputation: SkaredShtles's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,357
    Mammoth Cave National Park had trails open to bikes several years ago when we visited...

  7. #7
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Thanks for sharing that one.

    I got a kick out of this.

    Environmental groups and NPS advocacy organizations
    howled in opposition, saying the agency "slithered" the new policy in
    on Independence Day, insinuating mountain biking in National Parks
    is somehow unpatriotic.


    The Center for Biological Diversity joined the National Parks Conservation
    Association and the Association of National Park Rangers expressing grave
    concerns the rule would circumvent public involvement and environmental
    analysis.

    In reality, the new rule will open nothing. It simply eliminates a blanket
    prohibition on bikes and adds possible bike use to the list of topics local
    officials are empowered to address through local planning. The new rule
    requires rigorous environmental compliance requirements and mandatory
    public comment on proposals to open existing or new trails to bikes. In
    addition, new trails outside of developed areas will continue to require a
    park-specific special regulation, and the NPS will continue to prohibit
    bicycle use in eligible, study, proposed, recommended and designated
    Wilderness areas.

    Greg Mumm, BRC's Executive Director was not surprised these groups
    oppose the new rule.
    "That is why we call them anti-recreation groups," he said.
    Mumm stressed
    the National Park System was never meant to be managed as
    Wilderness. "Through lawsuits and high-dollar political lobbying
    environmentalists are tilting the balance.
    This new rule is entirely
    appropriate. The National Park System needs to be willing to provide
    Americans with recreational access," he added.
    At least the BRC get's it.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Operating any vehicle with an alcoholic beverage is against the law. That is why you can't ride your bike with a beer in your hand in a National Park or on a city street.

    Also, riding is allowed through tunnels, but only with front (white) and rear (red) lights. Which is pretty much the law for riding through any tunnel. You know, since cars are supposed to turn on their lights in a tunnel, it makes sense that bikes are required to have lights to ride through the tunnel.

  9. #9
    how heavy are you ??
    Reputation: Scottay5150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by ignazjr View Post
    no go for RMNP, they are all about maintaining the status quo.
    Sounds like politics as usual then, eh?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    What does Marsellus Wallace look like, A BIT*H? :)

  10. #10
    ride
    Reputation: ignazjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,273
    Yeah, I kinda quit paying attention to it. Last time I bothered to check, they were trying to make all of RMNP Wilderness as well. They definitely do not want bikes anywhere up there that you can't drive a car.

    I have a customer that has lost use of his legs and has a badass full suspension handcycle. He rides it in RMNP because it's "wheelchair." Says he gets lots of condemning looks but they can't do anything about it!
    Redstone Cyclery
    intense*transition*rocky mountain*turner
    web - tweet - FB
    Lyons, CO

  11. #11
    Colorado
    Reputation: Drop the Seat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    452
    I think this could be kind of cool for a lot of people. It might be fun to do some dirt road rides in some of the AK National Parks. I wonder if you already could?

  12. #12
    friend of Apex
    Reputation: WKD-RDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,004
    the drugs made me realize it's not about the drugs

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    for tha multi-faceted lulz


  14. #14
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    for tha multi-faceted lulz



    Yosemite County Club ^^^ this is the MTB'ng you speak of?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    You'd rather all those bike miles be replaced with car miles?

    Just because it doesn't fit your narrow perception of mountain biking doesn't make it wrong.

  16. #16
    Alaskan in exile.
    Reputation: nanook93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    439

    Mtbing in AK NPs

    Quote Originally Posted by Drop the Seat View Post
    I think this could be kind of cool for a lot of people. It might be fun to do some dirt road rides in some of the AK National Parks. I wonder if you already could?
    Should be okay in Denail NP, according to the NPS website. I know I rode in the park several times when I was growing up, so they have allowed it since at least the early '90s.

    There is mtbing in Wrangell-St. Elias NP as well. During the summer of 1991, we met some mtbers on the Nugget Creek Trail on the way to the public use cabin. They were coming out as we were headed in. They were the only two people we saw during the entire Fourth of July, 4-day weekend.
    nanook93
    Ride what you like, like what you ride.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    310
    This is news to me. I've been riding my bike on trails in many NPs for more than a decade. I've even talked to rangers on those trails. Never had a problem as long as you aren't making it hell for the other users. So, that rules out most of the knobhead cable haulers on this forum.

  18. #18
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    As a follow-up.
    Below are several million reasons why we will never ride in Wilderness Areas
    or National Parks. Mr. Gardner's research is quite informative.

    This goes along well with what Greg Mumm, BRC's Executive Director said in
    the article Thump provided. "Through lawsuits and high-dollar political
    lobbying environmentalists are tilting the balance"



    Public Records Reveal Web of Connections Between Local Green Groups | Media Trackers Colorado

    16th Jul 2012 at 09:36 | By Aaron Gardner
    "A search of publicly available records reveals a web of connections between
    environmental groups in and out of Colorado. National and out-of-state
    environmental organizations have poured money into the coffers of various green
    organizations within the state of Colorado, money which then can be traced to
    lobbyists, activist efforts, get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operations, and candidates
    running for local, state, and federal offices
    ."

    "Each election cycle many of these front groups fail to file financial disclosures
    required by law, resulting in the groups being dissolved, and effectively hiding their
    flow of money at first glance."

    "Coloradans for Responsible Growth received contributions totaling in the hundreds of thousands:"

    • National Wildlife Federation – $100,000
    • Colorado Public Interest Research Group (COPirg) – $135,000
    • Motra LLC, California – $200,000
    • Sierra Club of Colorado – $44,500
    • Colorado Environmental Coalition – $35,000
    • East West Partners – $100,000
    • League of Conservation Voters – $100,000



    "Coloradans for Clean Energy was created for the 2004 election cycle to facilitate the flow of money into Colorado."
    Out-of-State Contributions to Coloradans for Clean Energy

    • The Partnership Project – $90,000
    • American Wind Energy Association – $40,000
    • USPIRG – $30,000
    • Union of Concerned Scientist – $95,000
    • MoveOn – $25,000
    • Natural Resources Defense Council – $50,000
    • The Environmental Defense Fund – $25,000
    • Powerlight – $30,000
    • Solar Industries Association – $35,000

    In-State Contributions to Coloradans for Clean Energy

    • Environment Colorado* – $250,000
    • Sierra Club of Colorado – $30,000
    • Colorado Environmental Coalition – $20,000



    "In the 2008 election cycle A Smarter Colorado was formed. In a key election year for Democrats, A Smarter Colorado brought in nearly $3 million in contributions from outside the state."
    Out-of-State Contributions to A Smarter Colorado ($2,900,000)

    • The Nature Conservancy – $1,500,000
    • Conservation Campaign – $25,000
    • The Conservation Fund – $50,000
    • The Environmental Defense Fund – $110,000
    • The national Sierra Club – $295,000
    • Big Hen Corp – $100,000
    • Partnership Project – $26,000
    • The American Alliance for Economic Development – $50,000
    • The National Education Association – $110,000
    • The Sonora Institue – $210,000
    • Arabella Legacy – $174,000
    • Tudor Jones Investments – $250,000
    • Iberdrola Renewables – $35,000

    In-State Contributions to A Smarter Colorado ($750,000)

    • Progressive Future – $215,000
    • SEIU Colorado – $100,000
    • Colorado Environmental Coalition – $105,000
    • Colorado Conservation Voters – $250,000
    • Environment Colorado – $20,000
    • Vestar – $25,000


    "Colorado Conservation Victory Fund was created for the 2010 election cycle, with contributions from the following organizations:"

    • Colorado Conservation Voters – $186,000
    • Colorado Freedom Fund – $30,000
    • LCV Political Engagement Fund – $70,000
    • Moore Capital Management – $35,000


    "Tying so many of these state environmental organizations together are the
    registered agent name and the building housing these organizations. Julie
    Wells is listed as the registered agent for a majority of the groups in
    Colorado. Additionally, in recent years, these groups have been housed at
    1536 Wynkoop Street in Denver, which is also listed as the address for a
    large number of liberal organizations within the state."

  19. #19
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogbie
    You'd rather all those bike miles be replaced with car miles?

    Just because it doesn't fit your narrow perception of mountain biking doesn't make it wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by KarateChicken View Post
    uncoolFAIL will forever remain clueless
    moar inane psychobabble to avoid the topic. ^^^

    You imply I'm narrow minded in my views of mountain biking but my
    work history, writings and advocacy prove otherwise.

    Putting public pressure on the NPS to take further steps in addressing
    recreational access to public land is not narrow minded. It's called
    advocacy.

    Advocacy for INCLUSION is not narrow minded.
    Advocacy for exclusion (environmental activism) is narrow minded.

    The fact that I do not allow others to tell me what to think scares you.
    "How dare you want more!"
    "How dare you challenge the system with high expectations!"
    "How dare you think outside the box!"
    "How dare you question authority!"
    "Shhhh! the government TELLS US what to believe UT."

    You two.... sitting on your ass saying "well at least we got something
    so stop *****ing"... that's the worst. Complacency makes me vomit.

    Complacency plagues the bike community in the US. You're weenies.

    You're too scared to get mad. You're chicken ****. You won't fight. You
    just stand on the sidelines mocking those of us who do. It's pathetic
    to watch. You don't help us move forward, you just drag us down.

    Face it.
    You're just another Mike Vandeman who happens to ride a bike.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,231
    Shouldn't surprise you UT. Those two guys would follow each other off a cliff.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Want to ride trails in NPs? Go ride the trails in NPs. Call it civil disobedience, but don't pretend you're doing anyone some huge favor. And please, do not speak for me.

    I find your thinking narrow because your actions are for yourself. You're not some altruist, you're just some guy who feels personally attacked and threatened by any action you don't agree with.

    Am I supposed to think just like you? Is that what you want? Because that is what your language suggests. Hence, the mockery. I don't necessarily disagree with all your points; I disagree with the way you present them.


  22. #22
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    I find your thinking narrow because your actions are for yourself. You're not some altruist, you're just some guy who feels personally attacked and threatened by any action you don't agree with.
    So now I'm not an failed altruist? my god...

    I'm an advocate for outdoor recreation which I have spent some 20+ years
    employed in and which I have seen come under increasing attacks from
    environmental extremists with half-truths and flat out lies. Not only is it
    putting people out of work in the recreation business, it's harming our kids
    and economy.

    Colorado's economy is based on travel, tourism and outdoor recreation
    whether you like it or not. Eliminating outdoor recreation opportunities
    is destructive.

    Over and over again I have listened as Parks employees have attacked
    golf courses, motos, hunting, fishing, mountain biking and any other form of
    outdoor recreation that doesn't fit into their little list of acceptable
    activities.

    The public should be aware that these biases exist. That's my motivation.
    I'm no longer employed in recreation so I now have the ability to speak out,
    and I'm doing so.


    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Am I supposed to think just like you? Is that what you want?
    No Rogbie that is what YOU want. I want people to think for themselves
    and make their own decisions based on ALL of the available information.
    And I'm giving them the resources to do so. That's what really pisses you
    off. The truth scares you because it contradicts your belief system and
    your ability to control others.

    The truth is it's not a level playing field. Through lobbying and litigation
    the field has been tilted in favor of environmental extremism (anti-
    recreation). BRC has it right.

    Mountain bikers need to be made aware that you can be a conservationist
    and still have recreation. Despite what the environmentalist/anti-
    recreationalist say, recreation and conservation are not incompatible
    activities and guys like myself are out here to make the two work together.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    You know nothing of my ideals. Stop assuming you know my thoughts and actions.

    Any evidence you present it presented through your biases and prejudices. Your sources are overwhelmingly conservative in nature. You're presenting your side of the story and using misleading language and sources.

    If I wanted to ride on the trails in NP I would. And I would assume the consequences of those actions. However, I feel it is acceptable and understand the need to have places where mechanized vehicles are not allowed. There is no loss of access. Access is, simply, accomplished by different means. Anyone that wants to enjoy those trails will do so regardless of the mode of transportation. Complaining that your preferred mode is off-limits, and making it a political statement as well, is nearsighted, at best.

    Buy a pair of hiking boots or a horse, and bag some sweet, no bikes allowed, singletrack.

    Using divisive language and pigeonholing groups is no way to make the two work together. Calling people "environmentalists/anti-recreationists" is not doing you any good. As long as you see your cause as a binary you'll struggle to gain support from anyone.

  24. #24
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861

    How much more land do hikers need for their private nature orgasms?

    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    You know nothing of my ideals. Stop assuming you know my thoughts and actions.

    Any evidence you present it presented through your biases and prejudices. Your sources are overwhelmingly conservative in nature. You're presenting your side of the story and using misleading language and sources.

    If I wanted to ride on the trails in NP I would. And I would assume the consequences of those actions. However, I feel it is acceptable and understand the need to have places where mechanized vehicles are not allowed. There is no loss of access. Access is, simply, accomplished by different means. Anyone that wants to enjoy those trails will do so regardless of the mode of transportation. Complaining that your preferred mode is off-limits, and making it a political statement as well, is nearsighted, at best.

    Buy a pair of hiking boots or a horse, and bag some sweet, no bikes allowed, singletrack.

    Using divisive language and pigeonholing groups is no way to make the two work together. Calling people "environmentalists/anti-recreationists" is not doing you any good. As long as you see your cause as a binary you'll struggle to gain support from anyone.
    Not everyone has good feet.

    In the US there are millions upon millions of acres of public/private land
    where mechanized travel is not allowed or even practical and the
    wildlife is left to roam free from man. 109 million acres of Wilderness
    alone.

    Salazar has attempted to redefine what "wilderness" is, so that more
    land falls under the labels regulatory umbrella... the need for more
    wilderness is a lie. It's not about protecting the land. It's a well
    orchestrated power grab.

    What you're blindly advocating is selling out all other recreational users on
    your fantasy crusade to eliminate the globe of the evil black slime and smog
    machines that use it.

    Reality is you are being used by power trippers in their desire to regulate
    energy supplies and eliminate private property rights. Left or right, dems or
    repubs, they both are the same. They, the elite, simply want control... of
    everything. They will lie to get it.

    So the people you think MTB'ers should align with won't be happy until the
    government restricts public access to all public land and controls private
    property through conservation easements and zoning regulations. You
    are being conned into supporting them, while they stab us in the back
    behind closed doors. examples: Cheyenne Mtn., Manitou Section 16.

    I don't believe it does our sport any good to align ourselves with groups
    who wish to restrict public access to public land. In fact I would say
    people who do believe in doing so are borderline socialist/communist. My
    former-Communist spouse says I'm correct in my analysis of the land grab,
    "because that's what Socialist do.". Flame away.

    Yes that's too far to the left for me. I'm a conservationist. There is a
    middle ground. And I might be blind too, but I see things very clearly.

    Socialist don't like being exposed for what they really are. It's easy to
    understand your anger and frustration.

    So sorry comrade... I will not comply.

  25. #25
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Uncle, you're a riot!

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255

    Big Red, commien to get ya!

    Seriously, where do you get this ****?



  27. #27
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Seriously, where do you get this ****?


    Next thing you know Sahara klub card carrying Cuban soldiers will be staffing national parks. WOLVERINES!

  28. #28
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Seriously, where do you get this ****?
    I read the news... and learn from historians and futurist, not
    pop-psychologist.

    Boulder County considers $8.85 million in open-space purchases - Boulder Daily Camera
    Stonebraker said the Elliott Property is adjacent to hundreds of other acres of government-owned land and private lands covered by government-held conservation easements.

    It is prime agricultural land and contributes to the rural buffer of open space north of Longmont," Stonebraker wrote the Parks and Open Space Advisory Committee.
    Taking "prime agricultural land" out of production because you're scared
    of someone building houses has no affect on our economy or housing
    prices.

    Of course people need more barren land to look at while driving down the
    road on their way to work in Boulder from out of town. What was I
    thinking?

    Yes of course. Collectivism, that's where it's at. Bring on the factory
    farms... they worked so well in Russia in 1932.

    He said acquiring the 210 acres "would nearly complete a natural habitat zone that covers more than 20,000 acres.
    Natural Habitat Zone. I wonder if those are code words for "no bikes allowed"?

    Seriously, look at this map and help me understand why Boulder needs to
    spend another $8.8 million on open space when there are so many
    unemployed and homeless people in this country looking for people
    to create jobs.

    Development creates jobs.

    Why should I pay for Obamacare when Boulder has this kind of money
    to blow on drive-by land, instead of letting the open market dictate
    whether or not it becomes developed and puts people back to work so
    they can pay for their own healthcare?

    Because Boulder is a bellwether community moving towards Collective
    Socialism, that's why. And everything is cyclical. We don't learn from past
    mistakes.

    If it weren't for the affordable housing around Boulder, Boulder's experiment
    with Socialism would have already failed. And It will fail. Socialism always
    does. Just like the Euro is failing now.

    So Rogbie I really don't have to look any further than Boulder to come up
    with this crap. It's all right there.
    Last edited by UncleTrail; 07-19-2012 at 05:27 PM.

  29. #29
    zrm
    zrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,577
    Holy Moly, it's worse than I thought! Not only is the Red Menace on the march, but it hates mountain biking!

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Lol. There is an open space park in Lafayette that is leased to a local farmer. Maybe something like that is in the plan. Other than that, it seems to work for the people of Boulder County. This looks like democracy at work. The people elect the officials who make proposals and decisions regarding public lands for the public to vote for or against.

    Last time I checked the homeless population isn't interested in working. And certainly not on a farm and for farm wages that for small farmers average less than $7.00/hr. Really, most of the small farms in Boulder County use volunteer staff and interns to get a lot of the work done. Farming has its own inherent problems, most of which are borne out of development and an unchecked open market. See the destruction of small towns and farming communities throughout the country and increasingly the world. For reference, read Wes Jackson's "Becoming Native to this Place". If you're interested in the future I suggest looking into the work of The Land Institute.

    Take your fight against government control to something that matters. Read "Everything I Want to Do is Illegal," by Joel Salatain.

    This might be a good stating point for you: From Joel Salatin – June 1, 2012 | Polyface, Inc.

    Factory farms indeed. In fact, factory farming is de rigur in this country. a recent change starting just before WWII and picking up speed with the change over of the military-industrial complex. It's a funny thing about the stuff that makes bombs. It can be used to make food grow in unnatural ways. The irony is almost too much.

    Trail access for mountain bikes is minuscule in the face of the systemized control and sell-out of one of our most precious needs--food. I'd rather eat unadulterated food than ride my bike.

    This states best agricultural land and most of its precious prairie is planted in foundations and shingles.

    See, I can get all politic-ky and off topic, too.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Quote Originally Posted by zrm View Post
    Holy Moly, it's worse than I thought! Not only is the Red Menace on the march, but it hates mountain biking!
    In Soviet Russia bike rides you.


  32. #32
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Other than that, it seems to work for the people of Boulder County. This looks like democracy at work.
    That's your opinion.
    I see a bloated bureaucracy where contractors double their bids because of
    the headaches of doing business in Boulder.

    I see a community with no affordable housing that in relative terms has a
    work force working at poverty wages and being forced to live outside of the
    community. It's like Disneyworld. Everyone who works there lives
    somewhere else.

    I see farms that cannot exist without conservation easements being placed
    on the property and once the owner does, they loose any hope of ever
    being able to sell the property at a fair market value because of the
    restrictions. On top of that their kids don't want it either.

    In 50 years every conservation easement in Boulder County will become
    some rich guys personal estate. That's the only people who can afford to
    buy property like that. Property owners with CE's will have buyers
    remorse. It's already happening. Ask the Shannahan's.

    And the City can't buy it because they own the conservation easement.
    The Shannahans are on cowboy welfare. Live and learn I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    The people elect the officials who make proposals and decisions regarding public lands for the public to vote for or against.
    Um no.
    If that were the case, mob rule would ensue.
    You vote for elected officials who then carry out their personal agenda.
    Citizens don't get to vote on land use issues. Elected officials do.
    You just hope they vote the way you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    Last time I checked the homeless population isn't interested in working.
    So someone who lost their job in this recession and ended up homeless, "just doesn't want to work"? Come on.

    The other day we were in a junk food place and a lady was buying dinner
    for her daughter and niece. I overheard the conversation as the aunt
    asked what her niece and father had talked about on the phone that night.
    She was very upset that her father could not be there with them and
    missed him. He was living in a homeless shelter and the niece was living
    with her aunt until her father could find a job. You should think about that.


    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    And certainly not on a farm and for farm wages that for small farmers average less than $7.00/hr. Really, most of the small farms in Boulder County use volunteer staff and interns to get a lot of the work done. Farming has its own inherent problems, most of which are borne out of development and an unchecked open market.
    Unchecked open market? WTH? You can't even Google that. What BS.
    You just made that up! "hey lookie there, that's an unlocked open door".
    As if an open door should be locked. I'm convinced. You gotta be drunk.


    Quote Originally Posted by rogbie View Post
    This states best agricultural land and most of its precious prairie is planted in foundations and shingles.
    That's just a cliche or soundbite you probably heard from some blowhard
    anti-development eco-nazi. Sounds hip but completely untrue.



    As an Agronomist I found the links on the farms interesting though. Hobby,
    niche market farms. But nonetheless interesting. Everything else sounded
    a little Hollywood. Nice try, but I still ain't buyin'.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by UncleTrail View Post
    That's your opinion.
    I see a bloated bureaucracy where contractors double their bids because of
    the headaches of doing business in Boulder.
    I'm a contractor in Boulder and this is so far from the truth that it destroys the credibility of all your posts. It proves (to me) you have no clue what you are talking about.

  34. #34
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderWhitewater View Post
    I'm a contractor in Boulder and this is so far from the truth that it destroys the credibility of all your posts. It proves (to me) you have no clue what you are talking about.
    The trail contractor who has built trails for me doubles his bids for Boulder.

    He's told me that to my face. I've seen the bids when I reviewed GOCO grants.

    I'm speaking from experience and what I've seen so yes I do know what
    I'm talking about.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rogbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,255
    Sounds like smart business to me. If demand exists at a doubled price, why not charge it?

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation: KarateChicken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,865
    Quote Originally Posted by BoulderWhitewater View Post
    I'm a contractor in Boulder and this is so far from the truth that it destroys the credibility of all your posts. It proves (to me) you have no clue what you are talking about.
    There are so many facets of FAIL on the party in question, it's easy for everyone to find at least one that confirms it for them.

  37. #37
    contains quinine
    Reputation: Debaser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,639
    Take the long cut, we'll get there eventually.

  38. #38
    Almost Human
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,861
    Quote Originally Posted by Debaser View Post

    Thx.
    Done.

  39. #39
    Old, Slow and now FAT! :)
    Reputation: TheNormsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,615
    I submitted comments. It would have been nice to have ridden this trail when I was in Grand Lake for Labor Day.

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.