What happened to the Bruce?- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 94 of 94
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    416

    What happened to the Bruce?

    Was hiking today in Caledon and noticed almost every trail I was on had 'no biking' signs with a picture of a 1980s MTB with an aerospoke front wheel going downhill

    I haven't ridden these trails in years but I remember riding them years ago and they were all open for biking - kind of a shame in my opinion as they were great trails for riding and had very low traffic so hiker / biker issues weren't common

    Is this a new thing for the Bruce?
    www.abikeslife.com ontario bike stuff!

    WolfPak Racing! :thumbsup:
    https://www.facebook.com/wolfpakracingcanada

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trailtrash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,232
    since you were hiking this time you were moving slower therefore actually noticing the signs.
    this may have to be the next big battle front to get cycling allowed on the bruce trail.
    for starters we need mtn bikers to start joining the bruce trail association and fight this from the inside.convincing existing members to come out and join you for a ride and get them hooked.
    Team Van Go

    the older I get the better I was

  3. #3
    9 lives
    Reputation: cyclelicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14,093
    Caledon is a huge area. Where were you hiking?
    F*ck Cancer

    Eat your veggies

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    3,779
    I would have said the Bruce trail policy has always been hiking only - no bikes or horses. Local restrictions take priority depending on the property the trail runs through. When we used to ride the Bruce trail in the mid 80's, hiking trails were the only place to ride and I know that was against the rules then.
    The signs are probably cause someone got pissed off and decided to do something about it.

    The Bruce Trail is a footpath.
    Bicycles, motorized vehicles, and horses are not allowed except along road sections of the Trail and in those few areas where explicit permission is posted.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Kudos to the Bruce Trail Association members for their foresight of what could be done with a yearly membership fee and a combined real volunteer effort. The trails they have built are fantastic. I wish we MTBers had enough desire to build something like this or added enough value to become apart of this huge connected trails system.

  6. #6
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Kudos to the Bruce Trail Association members for their foresight of what could be done with a yearly membership fee and a combined real volunteer effort. The trails they have built are fantastic. I wish we MTBers had enough desire to build something like this or added enough value to become apart of this huge connected trails system.
    You know...I can no longer tell if you care or just simply Trolling.

  7. #7
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    You know...I can no longer tell if you care or just simply Trolling.
    It sounds like you are implying it's trolling when a person posts up a comment in almost every trail advocacy or trail access thread with a pretense of talking about that trail system's issues but are really talking about their own completely different trail system, for which a thread already exists.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  8. #8
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    You know...I can no longer tell if you care or just simply Trolling.
    I do dislike you calling me a troll, but you will continue to do so, oh well.

    Oh I care Endura. I care lots. The Bruce is a fantastic trail that would be stellar to ride from Queenston to Tobermory. But because of political issues it is not possible without sneaking. But I should stop there before it upsets you or our linear Mod. Sorry to of said too much.

    No we canít ride most of the Bruce ... not sure why.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Kudos to the Bruce Trail Association members for their foresight of what could be done with a yearly membership fee and a combined real volunteer effort. The trails they have built are fantastic. I wish we MTBers had enough desire to build something like this or added enough value to become apart of this huge connected trails system.
    The Bruce is free for all hombre!

    No fee's required - although they encourage donations / purchasing of their trail map book - and there is a membership you can buy if you want to join their posse and get bragging rights to lesser hikers about how tight you are with The Bruce
    www.abikeslife.com ontario bike stuff!

    WolfPak Racing! :thumbsup:
    https://www.facebook.com/wolfpakracingcanada

  10. #10
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    I do dislike you calling me a troll, but you will continue to do so, oh well.

    Oh I care Endura. I care lots. The Bruce is a fantastic trail that would be stellar to ride from Queenston to Tobermory. But because of political issues it is not possible without sneaking. But I should stop there before it upsets you or our linear Mod. Sorry to of said too much.

    No we canít ride most of the Bruce ... not sure why.
    Actually first time used the word.

  11. #11
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    It sounds like you are implying it's trolling when a person posts up a comment in almost every trail advocacy or trail access thread with a pretense of talking about that trail system's issues but are really talking about their own completely different trail system, for which a thread already exists.
    Yes. Closest I could come to describing it....Born Again type.

  12. #12
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    they also get substantial public funding, just saying...


    Quote Originally Posted by broadwayline View Post
    The Bruce is free for all hombre!

    No fee's required - although they encourage donations / purchasing of their trail map book - and there is a membership you can buy if you want to join their posse and get bragging rights to lesser hikers about how tight you are with The Bruce
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  13. #13
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    some trails are changing their designation so the signs might not reflect the actual status of the trail. the main thing is to be polite and courteous to other users. i always make it a point to help out on a bta or affiliate trail day to show that mtbers will support other stake holders. it goes a long way with regards to advocacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by broadwayline View Post
    Was hiking today in Caledon and noticed almost every trail I was on had 'no biking' signs with a picture of a 1980s MTB with an aerospoke front wheel going downhill

    I haven't ridden these trails in years but I remember riding them years ago and they were all open for biking - kind of a shame in my opinion as they were great trails for riding and had very low traffic so hiker / biker issues weren't common

    Is this a new thing for the Bruce?
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Hi everyone. I work for the Bruce Trail Conservancy, so hopefully I can shed some light on the conversation. Firstly, it's actually a misconception that we receive public funding. This used to be true, but for the past 10 years we rely almost entirely on donations and membership fees. And keep in mind that all of the work that is done on the trail is by volunteers (we have a whopping 1400 of them!). It's also worth noting that apart from maintaining the trail, our mission is to purchase land along the Niagara Escarpment in order to create a conservation corridor that contains the trail. Currently we've been responsible for protecting 10,000 acres along the Escarpment, 9000 of which we still actively manage as conservation land.

    Our policy has always been that the Bruce Trail is a footpath that is for hiking only. There are some exceptions to this when the trail passes through certain Conservation Areas and such. The thing to remember is that unless we own or manage the land, the trail is there because the landowner graciously allowed the trail on their property. With 25% of the trail passing through private land, it's very important that we hold true on our promise to these landowners that we are putting a 'hiking only' trail on their property. It does get tricky when certain public lands (such as Conservation Areas) allow biking on their property (and hence the trail). This definitely creates some confusion as to what is and isn't considered an 'acceptable' use of the trail. As a general rule however, the Bruce Trail is a pedestrian footpath. If anyone has any questions about our policies or anything else Bruce Trail related, don't hesitate to ask.

  15. #15
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Great to read the truth about the need for donations, membership fees and volunteers ... just saying we do not usually get the real deal from people who think they know it all.

    Bruce do you ever see a way in which the MTBing community could help with funding your projects and volunteering trail work in exchange to being allow full access to your grand trail?

  16. #16
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    Hi everyone. I work for the Bruce Trail Conservancy, so hopefully I can shed some light on the conversation. Firstly, it's actually a misconception that we receive public funding. This used to be true, but for the past 10 years we rely almost entirely on donations and membership fees. And keep in mind that all of the work that is done on the trail is by volunteers (we have a whopping 1400 of them!). It's also worth noting that apart from maintaining the trail, our mission is to purchase land along the Niagara Escarpment in order to create a conservation corridor that contains the trail. Currently we've been responsible for protecting 10,000 acres along the Escarpment, 9000 of which we still actively manage as conservation land.

    Our policy has always been that the Bruce Trail is a footpath that is for hiking only. There are some exceptions to this when the trail passes through certain Conservation Areas and such. The thing to remember is that unless we own or manage the land, the trail is there because the landowner graciously allowed the trail on their property. With 25% of the trail passing through private land, it's very important that we hold true on our promise to these landowners that we are putting a 'hiking only' trail on their property. It does get tricky when certain public lands (such as Conservation Areas) allow biking on their property (and hence the trail). This definitely creates some confusion as to what is and isn't considered an 'acceptable' use of the trail. As a general rule however, the Bruce Trail is a pedestrian footpath. If anyone has any questions about our policies or anything else Bruce Trail related, don't hesitate to ask.
    what is you policy on bta signage regarding sections of the trail where the landowner (municipal, conservation, provincial, private, etc) allows multi use. And is there a map showing these sections? do you update these maps to reflect changing polices?

    correct me if i'm wrong but you received over $1,001,377 in grants in 2013?
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  17. #17
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    i wouldn't be so quick to toot the truth horn tom... it's all depends on how you interpret it...


    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Great to read the truth about the need for donations, membership fees and volunteers ... just saying we do not usually get the real deal from people who think they know it all.

    Bruce do you ever see a way in which the MTBing community could help with funding your projects and volunteering trail work in exchange to being allow full access to your grand trail?
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Great to read the truth about the need for donations, membership fees and volunteers ... just saying we do not usually get the real deal from people who think they know it all.

    Bruce do you ever see a way in which the MTBing community could help with funding your projects and volunteering trail work in exchange to being allow full access to your grand trail?

    There has definitely been considerable discussion within the BTC over the years about the use of the trail for biking. All of these discussions inevitably lead back to the same conclusion - that the trail is for hiking only. I can understand how that may seem counter intuitive because the Bruce Trail is really intended to get people outdoors to be active and engage with the natural world, which I imagine are also primary motivations for the MTBing community. That being said, there are two main reasons that will likely always prevent the BTC from adopting a policy of allowing bikes on the trail: 1) Private landowners have agreed to allow a 'hiking only' trail on their property and the trail has actually been 'kicked off' of certain properties because trail users weren't following the rules (i.e. littering, biking, walking dogs off-leash) - remember the Bruce Trail is allowed on private property only as a guest; 2) The safety of Bruce Trail hikers is always of high importance and in certain (mostly heavily populated) areas it can actually be quite dangerous to have hikers and bikers using the same trail - particularly given the steep hills and numerous bends of the trail as it winds along the Escarpment.

    We certainly appreciate your sentiment - that the MTBing community can help maintain the trail in exchange for using it, but unfortunately this happens to be one of our policies that won't change.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    what is you policy on bta signage regarding sections of the trail where the landowner (municipal, conservation, provincial, private, etc) allows multi use. And is there a map showing these sections? do you update these maps to reflect changing polices?

    correct me if i'm wrong but you received over $1,001,377 in grants in 2013?
    Our policies state that "The Bruce Trail Conservancy restricts the entire Trail to pedestrian use, except in areas where the landowner explicitly permits and takes responsibility for other usage of the Bruce Trail." So it is really the responsibility of the landowner to post signage concerning a change in use on the trail.

    In terms of grants, in our 2012-2013 fiscal year we received $16,486 in grants and in our 2013-2014 fiscal year we received $110,152 in grants - for 2013-2014 this translates to just 4% of our overall funding. All of our financial reports are available on our website here: Annual Reports & Financial Statements | Bruce Trail. I'm not quite sure where the $1,001,377 figure came from, but feel free to check it against the reports online.

  20. #20
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    That being said, there are two main reasons that will likely always prevent the BTC from adopting a policy of allowing bikes on the trail: 1) Private landowners have agreed to allow a 'hiking only' trail on their property and the trail has actually been 'kicked off' of certain properties because trail users weren't following the rules (i.e. littering, biking, walking dogs off-leash) - remember the Bruce Trail is allowed on private property only as a guest;
    From the tone of your posts, I am finding it difficult to believe during the process of arranging the usage agreements with landowners that an unbiased option or solicitation of opinion was carried out as a standard practice, asking them what forms of non-motorized activity they would like to allow on their property e.g. hiking, bicycling, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    We certainly appreciate your sentiment - that the MTBing community can help maintain the trail in exchange for using it, but unfortunately this happens to be one of our policies that won't change.
    We have your posts stating you work for the BTC. I'll take it on good faith this is true, but if the information you've posted is the official position of the BTC then it's probably better for you to refer us to some official position statement rather than your own posted text that this policy will never change. This is a mountain biking web site. If you are here to engage in some productive discussion then it's great to have you here as a member, but if you're here strictly for the purpose of putting forth your that the BTC is anti-bicycling, and will not ever have any involvement with cyclists, then I'm not sure what your contribution is.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  21. #21
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Perhaps he was answering this question Cir.

    "Is this a new thing for the Bruce?"

    I for one like to hear answers from "the other side" weather I like them or not.
    Thanks Bruce.

  22. #22
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Perhaps he was answering this question Cir.

    "Is this a new thing for the Bruce?"

    I for one like to hear answers from "the other side" weather I like them or not.
    Thanks Bruce.
    There are other ways to get correct information. If this poster isn't interested in dialogue, and is effectively here to come into every Bruce Trail discussion thread in the future with anti-cycling posts that effectively say "not on my watch, when hell freezes over" (I'm paraphrasing) then they don't have any business on this forum.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    There are other ways to get correct information. If this poster isn't interested in dialogue, and is effectively here to come into every Bruce Trail discussion thread in the future with anti-cycling posts that effectively say "not on my watch, when hell freezes over" (I'm paraphrasing) then they don't have any business on this forum.
    I genuinely apologize if my earlier posts were construed as inflammatory or simply 'anti-cycling', I can assure you that wasn't my intention. I am a BTC staff member. My name is Adam Brylowski and my title is Land Stewardship Coordinator. You can see our staff directory and contact my directly here if you'd like: Board and Staff List | Bruce Trail. My responsibilities typically deal with the management of BTC acquired conservation land, which does involve dealing with the enforcement of permitted uses quite regularly. As I mentioned earlier this topic has garnered considerable discussion here at the BTC and there is often a lot of confusion as to what is considered a 'permitted use' on the trail and I thought it might be helpful to hear what the official position of the BTC is in order to clarify a few things. And I think that's actually important for discussions such as this where there can be a lot of speculation and misinformation.

    I personally find it really commendable that people such as Tom Shaw offer to help with trail maintenance in an exchange for bike usage. We get sincere offers like these from time to time and it's always difficult to respond to them politely and truthfully, while also trying to not come off as anti-bike.

  24. #24
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    thanks for correcting i was a little bit confused looking at your fiscal statements. so based on the figures i looked at (bta site as suggested), you received grants in the past 7 years of $2,371,154? very nice.

    so your inferred lack of an answer to part of my question... it is the mandate of the bta to not provide maps showing actual permitted trail activities on sections of trail that don't fit your policies? i think this is misleading to the public. what is your policy about the bta posting signs that conflict with the landowners permitted uses? is it once again the landowners responsibility to remove/correct these signs?







    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    Our policies state that "The Bruce Trail Conservancy restricts the entire Trail to pedestrian use, except in areas where the landowner explicitly permits and takes responsibility for other usage of the Bruce Trail." So it is really the responsibility of the landowner to post signage concerning a change in use on the trail.

    In terms of grants, in our 2012-2013 fiscal year we received $16,486 in grants and in our 2013-2014 fiscal year we received $110,152 in grants - for 2013-2014 this translates to just 4% of our overall funding. All of our financial reports are available on our website here: Annual Reports & Financial Statements | Bruce Trail. I'm not quite sure where the $1,001,377 figure came from, but feel free to check it against the reports online.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  25. #25
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Thanks again for the interesting dialogue Adam. I wish MTBers could be apart of your awesome trail but I certainly do understand your position. The land owner is King and you must do as they say ... be good or be gone. To suggest that you needed to work extra hard to have MTBers approved while getting land agreements is asking a lot. Sort of like thinking the Government must bankroll all our trails, silly stuff.

    You MIGHT double your income if Bikes were allowed. But you WOULD quadruple your traffic. Something that I am sure most land owners are not interested in having happen.

    MTBers are doing good work like the Bruce trail in many places instead of just an entitled catch me if you can view. We are paying our way in some places with our money and our time. Good things are happening and someday things might change where we can legally ride the beautiful stuff you have ... Cape Chin, magnificent area. Thanks for putting sweet singletrack there.

    Please do post up with some real info from time to time.
    Dialog is important and you are welcome anytime.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    Firstly, it's actually a misconception that we receive public funding. This used to be true, but for the past 10 years we rely almost entirely on donations and membership fees.
    2012-13
    SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDING
    Ontario Heritage Trust
    City of Hamilton

    2011-12
    SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDING
    Environment Canada
    Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
    The Ontario Trillium Foundation

    2010-11
    SPECIAL PROJECTFUNDING
    City of Hamilton
    Ontario Ministry of Natural
    Resources
    Ontario Nature
    Ontario Trillium Foundation

    2009-2010
    SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDING
    City of Hamilton
    Ministry of Natural Resources
    Ontario Heritage Trust
    Regional Municipality of Halton
    The Ontario Trillium Foundation

    Can you outline how much funding does come from these government/municipal sources for "special projects"? Maybe someone with more time do dig or better able to read the financials can put a figure to it. To me those names imply public funding. Personally I think it's great the the BTA has tapped into public funding, I feel trails should be funded in the same manner that many other municipal facilities like hockey rinks and soccer fields are funded and maintained by public funds.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    thanks for correcting i was a little bit confused looking at your fiscal statements. so based on the figures i looked at (bta site as suggested), you received grants in the past 7 years of $2,371,154? very nice.

    so your inferred lack of an answer to part of my question... it is the mandate of the bta to not provide maps showing actual permitted trail activities on sections of trail that don't fit your policies? i think this is misleading to the public. what is your policy about the bta posting signs that conflict with the landowners permitted uses? is it once again the landowners responsibility to remove/correct these signs?
    The best answer to your question is that the entire Bruce Trail is a public footpath on which only hiking is permitted. On all private land over which the trail crosses we've assured landowners that the trail will only be used for hiking. We have regular contact with these landowners and if any of them were to suggest that they'd like a difference in permitted uses, such as biking, it's their decision as it's their land. In that case we would abide by the landowners wishes and post the appropriate signage (or lack-thereof). When the trail crosses into a property that does allow alternate uses, such as a Conservation Area, that particular landowner is responsible for stating what uses are permitted, so they are responsible for the signage on the property. Keep in mind this is also a matter liability, and officially stating something as a 'permitted use' could potentially lead to legal repercussions. In terms of mapping, our guidebook doesn't differentiate between different permitted uses along the trail. This is because we promote hiking only along the length of the trail.

    Again, I apologize that this has become a 'hiking vs. biking' thread. I'm only trying to help clarify our position.

  28. #28
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    I genuinely apologize if my earlier posts were construed as inflammatory or simply 'anti-cycling', I can assure you that wasn't my intention.
    Your posts have stated that the policy of the BTC is to limit access to hikers only, and not allow bicycles, now or ever. You can dress it up any way you want but with respect to BTC trail access, you are clearly anti-cycling. Your intention may have been to avoid appearing to be overtly anti-cycling, but that's not the same thing.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  29. #29
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Your posts have stated that the policy of the BTC is to limit access to hikers only, and not allow bicycles, now or ever. You can dress it up any way you want but with respect to BTC trail access, you are clearly anti-cycling. Your intention may have been to avoid appearing to be overtly anti-cycling, but that's not the same thing.
    I am not anti-Horses or anti-motos, but I am not going to put work into their access to trails. They are fine for railtrail type stuff built for their use. I work on MTBing issues and that takes up lots of time. I hope you are not anti-hiking Cir.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    2012-13
    SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDING
    Ontario Heritage Trust
    City of Hamilton

    2011-12
    SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDING
    Environment Canada
    Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
    The Ontario Trillium Foundation

    2010-11
    SPECIAL PROJECTFUNDING
    City of Hamilton
    Ontario Ministry of Natural
    Resources
    Ontario Nature
    Ontario Trillium Foundation

    2009-2010
    SPECIAL PROJECT FUNDING
    City of Hamilton
    Ministry of Natural Resources
    Ontario Heritage Trust
    Regional Municipality of Halton
    The Ontario Trillium Foundation

    Can you outline how much funding does come from these government/municipal sources for "special projects"? Maybe someone with more time do dig or better able to read the financials can put a figure to it. To me those names imply public funding. Personally I think it's great the the BTA has tapped into public funding, I feel trails should be funded in the same manner that many other municipal facilities like hockey rinks and soccer fields are funded and maintained by public funds.
    I would have to dig a bit to give you precise answers to each project associated with those organizations, and I can if you're sincerely interested, but these donations are typically for small local projects such as a bridge or boardwalk. As I mentioned earlier, only 4% of our funding in the past fiscal year came from public grants. We are a non-profit, non-governmental organization with a charitable status.

  31. #31
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    the bruce trail position on mountain biking hasn't changed for as long as i can remember (20 years), nothing new here. mtbers also have been offering/giving trail maintenance for that period of time to the bta, once again nothing new or ground shaking. the only thing that has changed is conservation land management polices which are being more inclusive to mtbers. as user agreements cycle through we are getting a seat at the table so to speak.

    enforcement will always be an issue as there is increased pressure of the population/development and it's recreation needs. old story here no matter who owns the land.

    smart sustainable inclusive management that protects that environment is the logical path. this scope is beyond what is sustainable through membership fees. so here we sit, all the different camps...






    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    I genuinely apologize if my earlier posts were construed as inflammatory or simply 'anti-cycling', I can assure you that wasn't my intention. I am a BTC staff member. My name is Adam Brylowski and my title is Land Stewardship Coordinator. You can see our staff directory and contact my directly here if you'd like: Board and Staff List | Bruce Trail. My responsibilities typically deal with the management of BTC acquired conservation land, which does involve dealing with the enforcement of permitted uses quite regularly. As I mentioned earlier this topic has garnered considerable discussion here at the BTC and there is often a lot of confusion as to what is considered a 'permitted use' on the trail and I thought it might be helpful to hear what the official position of the BTC is in order to clarify a few things. And I think that's actually important for discussions such as this where there can be a lot of speculation and misinformation.

    I personally find it really commendable that people such as Tom Shaw offer to help with trail maintenance in an exchange for bike usage. We get sincere offers like these from time to time and it's always difficult to respond to them politely and truthfully, while also trying to not come off as anti-bike.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  32. #32
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    I hope you are not anti-hiking Cir.
    I'm definitely not anti-hiking (love to see people out on the trails I ride, whether on foot or on bike), but even if I were I wouldn't be signing on as a member of hiking web sites to post up my anti-hiking manifesto. Adam is essentially a paid shill trying to enforce and perpetuate anti-cycling interests that are within his sphere of influence.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  33. #33
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    In terms of mapping, our guidebook doesn't differentiate between different permitted uses along the trail. This is because we promote hiking only along the length of the trail.

    Again, I apologize that this has become a 'hiking vs. biking' thread. I'm only trying to help clarify our position.
    you are also inferring that biking is prohibited along the entire bruce trail through non differentiation of others uses beyond hiking and non-cycling policies. your maps are proof of that. the confusion is created by your association since you are the ones making the maps. just saying. perhaps being a little more transparent with the land use will clarify things. it will also show the general public where they can volunteer to support their recreational needs on the bta and build stewardship.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    Would love to see a public campaign made to open the Bruce up to mtb.

    An association should form to start lobbying the private land owners to open their land to more than just hiking.

    As Singlesprocket has pointed out, conservation land management policies are changing.

  35. #35
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Exactly. Sounds like other than a few enlightened landowners, the majority were purposefully steered down the path of pedestrian only use by the BTC. Some may want to keep the status quo, others may not realize they have a choice and may be very open to the possibility. Big task to take on and manage professionally though.

    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    Would love to see a public campaign made to open the Bruce up to mtb.

    An association should form to start lobbying the private land owners to open their land to more than just hiking.

    As Singlesprocket has pointed out, conservation land management policies are changing.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  36. #36
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    Would love to see a public campaign made to open the Bruce up to mtb.

    An association should form to start lobbying the private land owners to open their land to more than just hiking.

    As Singlesprocket has pointed out, conservation land management policies are changing.
    Paid for by the public of course ... because they all MTB on Singletrack.

  37. #37
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    also... since the btc can no longer guarantee enforcement to hiking only with regards to liability. it will also be in the interest of the insurance underwriters and landowners to allow mountain biking. thus the risk can be managed through proven/accepted methods and practices.


    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    Would love to see a public campaign made to open the Bruce up to mtb.

    An association should form to start lobbying the private land owners to open their land to more than just hiking.

    As Singlesprocket has pointed out, conservation land management policies are changing.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  38. #38
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    also... since the btc can no longer guarantee enforcement to hiking only with regards to liability. it will also be in the interest of the insurance underwriters and landowners to allow mountain biking. thus the risk can be managed through proven/accepted methods and practices.
    Or just close the trail ... sounds anti-hiking.

  39. #39
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    I'm definitely not anti-hiking (love to see people out on the trails I ride, whether on foot or on bike), but even if I were I wouldn't be signing on as a member of hiking web sites to post up my anti-hiking manifesto. Adam is essentially a paid shill trying to enforce and perpetuate anti-cycling interests that are within his sphere of influence.
    The guy comes on here using his real name to speak truths about his organization. And our mod kicks him. Nice! Let's just listen to SS and then we will have it all without the need to work for it. Very open Cir.

  40. #40
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    The guy comes on here using his real name to speak truths about his organization. And our mod kicks him. Nice!
    This guy drew his own battle lines quite clearly. He's acting out of pure self-interest (in his paid capacity) for his mandate that has worked hard to exclude cyclists from the discussion table, so to speak. This forum is for cyclists, or those who are interested in furthering opportunities for cyclists. You can easily find his contact info if you wish to engage him. He has no place here.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Paid for by the public of course ... because they all MTB on Singletrack.
    You still on this schtick?

    Your continued use of it constantly devalues anything you provide to the conversation.

    My view is that the focus should be on making trails a legitimate PUBLIC asset that is provided for my public funds on public lands.

  42. #42
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    You still on this schtick?

    Your continued use of it constantly devalues anything you provide to the conversation.

    My view is that the focus should be on making trails a legitimate PUBLIC asset that is provided for my public funds on public lands.
    You still on this schtick? Devalued to free. Easy and lame.

    My view is when the public in certain areas can't afford it, you stop talking and roll up your sleeves and make it work. Like the Bruce people are doing. Contrary to the information SS gave. Bruce receives 4% government funds and one of the greatest trails in Canada. That is called getting it done shirk.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    My view is when the public in certain areas can't afford it, you stop talking and roll up your sleeves and make it work. Like the Bruce people are doing. Contrary to the information SS gave. Bruce receives 4% government funds and one of the greatest trails in Canada. That is called getting it done shirk.
    In total, the OTF has granted the BTC close to $1 million dollars since 2001. A substantial grant in 2001 allowed the BTC to enhance the organization's capacity and resulted in the creation of three staff positions to develop fundraising, marketing and volunteer programs. The result of that funding is a strong and thriving Bruce Trail Conservancy, that today is one of Ontario's largest land trusts
    Bruce Trail News | Bruce Trail

    Oh yeah they are just out there getin-r-done with just the membership fees. Between 2001 and 2008 a million from the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

    Home - Ontario Trillium Foundation Look down there at the bottom of the site, "The Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of the Government of Ontario".

    This is just the first google hit I pulled.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    I'd like so see some charting of the financials of the BTC.

    I am willing to bet that some substantial grants got them to where they are today financially. So while 4% last year might be true, they're at a point where they have a substantial "war chest" in their Endowment fund.

    Again I do think it shows that with the right motivation trails can be shown to be an asset that gets support. But membership dues is not going to get it anywhere near to where it should be.

    Glad I grew up riding in an era when there were no signs on the Bruce, so we rode everything. There isn't much from Halton to north of Owen Sound that I haven't ridden, it's beautiful trail and I'd love to see it open to mtb.

  45. #45
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    Bruce Trail News | Bruce Trail

    Oh yeah they are just out there getin-r-done with just the membership fees. Between 2001 and 2008 a million from the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

    Home - Ontario Trillium Foundation Look down there at the bottom of the site, "The Ontario Trillium Foundation is an agency of the Government of Ontario".

    This is just the first google hit I pulled.
    You see the admin part getting the Trillium funds like you were told in another thread and you did not believe. You were going to dig into some of the ones your club had received to see what the percentage was. Still waiting on you for that.

    Million over 8 years on a HUGE system to become almost self supporting. Money well spent I would say. Some organizations spend a million in a one year project with zero intention of being self supporting. Their idea is that the taxpayer has unlimited money.

  46. #46
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    I'd like so see some charting of the financials of the BTC.

    I am willing to bet that some substantial grants got them to where they are today financially. So while 4% last year might be true, they're at a point where they have a substantial "war chest" in their Endowment fund.

    Again I do think it shows that with the right motivation trails can be shown to be an asset that gets support. But membership dues is not going to get it anywhere near to where it should be.

    Glad I grew up riding in an era when there were no signs on the Bruce, so we rode everything. There isn't much from Halton to north of Owen Sound that I haven't ridden, it's beautiful trail and I'd love to see it open to mtb.
    Well you have Cir to thank for no one to ask. Do not ask SS, he can't talk about one's he knows the answer to, but can on the ones he does not know about.

    shirk could you give an example of why you are so certain that membership dues are not going to work. Government involvement is fine where possible, but I do not understand why you are so against people paying.

    I agree with you on one thing, it is beautiful trail, mostly by membership dues, that I would also love to see open to MTBs.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    You see the admin part getting the Trillium funds like you were told in another thread and you did not believe. You were going to dig into some of the ones your club had received to see what the percentage was. Still waiting on you for that.
    I just spoke with our Treasurer and the average is about 10%.

  48. #48
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    I just spoke with our Treasurer and the average is about 10%.
    Interesting. In Ontario the Trillium Fund wants to employ people so the average is about 50%. But then things would be different in BC ... like the massive amount of public land verse the very small amount of public land in southern Ontario.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dr.Zoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    888

    RE: What happened to the Bruce?

    Did you guys really kick BruceTrail off? I wanted to ask since their policy was that land owners were officially assured that the trail would be hiking only, why don't they just survey the private land owners and ask how they would feel about permitting bikes as well? What happens if most dont care? Would the BTA change their policies then or would there be another reason to say no? Have the landowners previously collectively said they dont want bikes?

    I bike on Gatineau Park on multi-shared trails all the time. I have never had an conflict with a hiker or a group of hikers (and there are A LOT of hiking clubs up here). There are several ways to deal with perceived conflict on hiking trails. There needs to be the will to do it. If there isn't a will then there is something else going on to promote the continued inequitable access to resources, public and private.
    Sent from my Lumia 920 using Board Express

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Interesting. In Ontario the Trillium Fund wants to employ people so the average is about 50%. But then things would be different in BC ... like the massive amount of public land verse the very small amount of public land in southern Ontario.
    Not sure if we are discussion the same think here. Say we receive a $50,000 grant this means we could spend $5000 of that grant money on administration the project that outlined in the grant proposal. So it can be used to pay a project manger. The other $45,000 needs to be spend directly on the project. Let's say for the discussion we allocate two full time trail builders to the project that $22,500 each to trained master trail builders that are on a project 5 days a week 8 hours a day until the money is exhausted. The project management only eats up $5000 but the rest goes into the trails.

    We've also received grants with zero allocation to admin. The full grant amount must be spent on trail projects and it's up to us to cover the admin expenses. Here is where your membership dollars can actually be put to great use. Covers the project management but the real dollars are from grants.

    I'd be really surprised to see 50% allocation to admin from the Trillium Foundation. Will have to dig into their site when I have time.

  51. #51
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Go ride bikes for the day and a long drive. Come back and I see you all have done the work. Time for a cold beer.

  52. #52
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    You still on this schtick?

    Your continued use of it constantly devalues anything you provide to the conversation.

    My view is that the focus should be on making trails a legitimate PUBLIC asset that is provided for my public funds on public lands.

    Don't bother Shirk. Tom S has shown that he wants it his way and that's it. Unfortunately he fails to grasp that it takes time to build funding infrastructure he seems to think his group is entitled to. Like land access raising funds is a long drawn out process. And if you work carefully and treat people well over time people will be more open to donating to the group money, materials, and in some cases machinery to get the jobs done.

    While not funding related but shows the importance of what I mentioned. Because I worked hard, didn't act entitled, was respectful, and in general wasn't a punk. I was trained how to operate the mini front end loader. If I wasn't would never have been trained to use it.

    Blew a tire.... learned how to jack it up and pull the wheel before the weekend. Stuff you don't get with other attitudes.


  53. #53
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg View Post
    Did you guys really kick BruceTrail off? I wanted to ask since their policy was that land owners were officially assured that the trail would be hiking only, why don't they just survey the private land owners and ask how they would feel about permitting bikes as well? What happens if most dont care? Would the BTA change their policies then or would there be another reason to say no? Have the landowners previously collectively said they dont want bikes?
    Go ahead and ask him. He posted up everything you need to contact him directly;

    Quote Originally Posted by BruceTrail View Post
    My name is Adam Brylowski and my title is Land Stewardship Coordinator. You can see our staff directory and contact my directly here if you'd like: Board and Staff List | Bruce Trail.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  54. #54
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg View Post
    Did you guys really kick BruceTrail off?


  55. #55
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Or just close the trail ... sounds anti-hiking.
    closing a trail does not keep people out... proven fact pretty much everywhere...

    how about creating a sensible inclusive trail management plan?
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  56. #56
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    The guy comes on here using his real name to speak truths about his organization. And our mod kicks him. Nice! Let's just listen to SS and then we will have it all without the need to work for it. Very open Cir.
    how many trails has this bta gentleman opened to mountain biking? how many trails does this gentleman intend to open to mountain biking in the future? he admitted in my opinion that his organization publish disinformation about allowable trail uses as a matter of policy on this thread. and you support this tom? my motive is to build more trails for all sustainable stakeholders, increase cycling infrastructure and promote stewardship whether you can pay a fee or not. to say that any of this is not work is a total face palm and very disrespectful.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  57. #57
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    You see the admin part getting the Trillium funds like you were told in another thread and you did not believe. You were going to dig into some of the ones your club had received to see what the percentage was. Still waiting on you for that.

    Million over 8 years on a HUGE system to become almost self supporting. Money well spent I would say. Some organizations spend a million in a one year project with zero intention of being self supporting. Their idea is that the taxpayer has unlimited money.
    you drive on roads don't you? just saying tom...
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  58. #58
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    You still on this schtick? Devalued to free. Easy and lame.

    My view is when the public in certain areas can't afford it, you stop talking and roll up your sleeves and make it work. Like the Bruce people are doing. Contrary to the information SS gave. Bruce receives 4% government funds and one of the greatest trails in Canada. That is called getting it done shirk.

    the time where a small group controls and dictates the recreation needs and natural environment access of millions of people is passing. nimby-ism is not sustainable and will actually hurt the environment. it is an out dated model, the world is changing. throwing dollar signs in front of it does not make it right, nor does it mean that your mode of logic is correct.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  59. #59
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    i'm pretty sure there was some substantial sucking at the grant teat while it was available. perhaps the reason the grants are drying up reflects a change in policy, where civil government now values trails as an important community recreation resource and is undertaking the management themselves.


    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    I'd like so see some charting of the financials of the BTC.

    I am willing to bet that some substantial grants got them to where they are today financially. So while 4% last year might be true, they're at a point where they have a substantial "war chest" in their Endowment fund.

    Again I do think it shows that with the right motivation trails can be shown to be an asset that gets support. But membership dues is not going to get it anywhere near to where it should be.

    Glad I grew up riding in an era when there were no signs on the Bruce, so we rode everything. There isn't much from Halton to north of Owen Sound that I haven't ridden, it's beautiful trail and I'd love to see it open to mtb.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CptSydor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,764
    Side story as I have nothing to contribute.

    I started trail running late this summer, intention was to complete the entire bruce trail in a year via running, hiking or snowshoeing (you know, cause it's a footpath only). That's been going pretty well so far, up to maybe 75 km of the 850 or so.

    Seeing as I didn't mind this trail running thing, I decided to start running to work a couple days a week. Cootes paradise separates my house and work, which has trails managed by the RBG (royal botanical gardens). As I was checking out maps to see different 'variations' I might take to work and back, I came upon the 'rule' you'll see at the bottom...

    http://www.rbg.ca/files/pdf/gardenar...CootesTG13.pdf

    'Running, Jogging and cycling are not permitted'

    It was a good run to work anyway this morning

    I wonder if I'm permitted to run the Bruce trail? I'll have to look it up.

    FYI, the BTC head quarters is located at the RBG.
    Last edited by CptSydor; 10-28-2014 at 07:24 AM.
    Straight outta Rossland

  61. #61
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Shaw View Post
    Do not ask SS, he can't talk about one's he knows the answer to, but can on the ones he does not know about.
    only if you pay me a fee tom... now where did i learn that from?
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trailtrash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,232
    Hey Scott (broadwayline)
    thanks for starting this thread
    we needed some good entertainment to get us through the cold months
    Team Van Go

    the older I get the better I was

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    12
    Hey Bruce,

    What's the deal with dogs off leash?

    I have come across an angry private land owner on his section of the Bruce - when I asked if he could put his dog on a leash he told me it was his land and he could choose whatever rules he wanted for that section of the Bruce.

    Is that true?

    Could I allow the Bruce to run through my land then make it biking only and no hikers?

  64. #64
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by CptSydor View Post
    Side story as I have nothing to contribute.

    I started trail running late this summer, intention was to complete the entire bruce trail in a year via running, hiking or snowshoeing (you know, cause it's a footpath only). That's been going pretty well so far, up to maybe 75 km of the 850 or so.

    Seeing as I didn't mind this trail running thing, I decided to start running to work a couple days a week. Cootes paradise separates my house and work, which has trails managed by the RBG (royal botanical gardens). As I was checking out maps to see different 'variations' I might take to work and back, I came upon the 'rule' you'll see at the bottom...

    http://www.rbg.ca/files/pdf/gardenar...CootesTG13.pdf

    'Running, Jogging and cycling are not permitted'

    It was a good run to work anyway this morning

    I wonder if I'm permitted to run the Bruce trail? I'll have to look it up.

    FYI, the BTC head quarters is located at the RBG.
    You can. A guy a few years ago ran the entire length .

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trailtrash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,232
    it was two years ago
    Cody (part of the team van go group)
    he broke the record. just over 12 days as a fund raiser.
    this year that record was broken and he helped the guy train.
    Cody also had support along the way which included people on mountain bikes.
    Last edited by trailtrash; 10-29-2014 at 02:06 AM.
    Team Van Go

    the older I get the better I was

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CptSydor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    You can. A guy a few years ago ran the entire length .
    Sure you can, but is it legal? I know people do it all the time.

    And I trump all your through runs with this, I think she did it in 19 days, I had a co-worker who introduced me to the story.

    Blind woman ready to tackle 900-kilometer Bruce Trail | CTV Barrie News
    Straight outta Rossland

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation: trailtrash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,232
    Cody was also one of her guides
    he said it was amazing what she was able to accomplish
    Team Van Go

    the older I get the better I was

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Greg_o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    560
    So a voice from the Bruce Trail gets bounced, and a chronic blow hard gets the usual write up only to flaunt that same power.

    RE Bruce Trail. I appreciated seeing them here. Don't agree at all, and have questioned their exclusion of mtb ever since being a hiker and member, but in these threads the more voices the better. We all are armed with our own BS detectors.

    Speaking of BS detectors. (RE Tom) You too have an important voice here. LIke with BT I don't agree with all you say. Just understand from the casual outside reader, you sound like a broken record. When the record is skipping, even if it's a great song, you're going to be happy when it stops repeating. Might even stop listening to that song altogether for a bit. Could be the best song in the world.

  69. #69
    Workin for the weekend!
    Reputation: -Todd-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,332
    25 years ago snowboarders weren't welcome in the same places as skiers, that all changed in time. I suspect this will change too. My guess is many of the landowners are coached by the BT conservancy that MTB activities are bad, with undesirable participants putting the ecosystem at risk.

    The personalities within the BT executive will evolve to become more inclusive, all it takes is time and education. The boomer generation is only getting lighter...
    Todd :thumbsup:

  70. #70
    9 lives
    Reputation: cyclelicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    14,093
    Quote Originally Posted by -Todd- View Post
    25 years ago snowboarders weren't welcome in the same places as skiers, that all changed in time. I suspect this will change too. My guess is many of the landowners are coached by the BT conservancy that MTB activities are bad, with undesirable participants putting the ecosystem at risk.

    The personalities within the BT executive will evolve to become more inclusive, all it takes is time and education. The boomer generation is only getting lighter...
    Singlesprocket and I have found that as well

    As mtbers we have to position ourselves in these organizations and landuse /planning committees to have a voice.
    It didn't seem like much at the time but singlesprocket and I joined /positioned ourselves in such a manner several years ago (I believe we were the only mtbers at the table). The members know who we are and that we ride. Although they claim to have 1000's of volunteers, their knowledge of trail construction/maintenance is minimal. As mtbers we have become leaders in this area. Not only have we benefitted to gain access to trails and land, we have become leaders in the tangible development of trail networks in Canada.

    Not only have mtbers benefitted from the unity but the hikers have also gained increased access to lands in a collaborative manner. This is the beginning creating of a positive relationship.
    F*ck Cancer

    Eat your veggies

  71. #71
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by cyclelicious View Post
    Singlesprocket and I have found that as well

    As mtbers we have to position ourselves in these organizations and landuse /planning committees to have a voice.
    It didn't seem like much at the time but singlesprocket and I joined /positioned ourselves in such a manner several years ago (I believe we were the only mtbers at the table). The members know who we are and that we ride. Although they claim to have 1000's of volunteers, their knowledge of trail construction/maintenance is minimal. As mtbers we have become leaders in this area. Not only have we benefitted to gain access to trails and land, we have become leaders in the tangible development of trail networks in Canada.

    Not only have mtbers benefitted from the unity but the hikers have also gained increased access to lands in a collaborative manner. This is the beginning creating of a positive relationship.
    I could not agree more with you Cycleo. The important part would be for us to show we are ready to be apart of the work, not just the using. We had talks with a land owner in my area about using an existing hiking trail through his property. He said no because with hiking it was only a few people per week, but knew it would be a few people per hour if MTBs were involved. MTBing is a different group demographic and we will not just inherit the Bruce private links. And trust me, the private land owners can close THEIR property if they want because it is the law. But I do agree with you, work will help our cause. Expecting a free ride will hurt it.

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    I too am a little surprised at the reception BruceTrail got. They do talk about mountain biking from time to time. And, they (the current leadership at least) just aren't interested. I held a membership for a couple years, walked most of it, and was primarily just glad it was there at all to worry much about whether or not the leadership was anti-bike or not.

    I'm not overly familiar with the origins of the trail, but my understanding is it was done with a lot of legwork and not much money. Perhaps someone with more knowledge could correct me, but what I heard is that the founding members just got in their cars, drove around the country-side and started cold-calling the locals and farmers. The land-use arrangement was often as little as a hand-shake. Obviously times are different now, and over the past 40 years there's no doubt that some public grants have been won by the BTA. But, my guess is they started the trail without much money and it wasn't easy. There's a lot of history there.

    Keep in mind, these guys are actually buying land and, in theory, protecting it from development. I think Bruce mentions the trail stands at about 25% private ownership? Which totally surprised me, last I heard that number was more like 50%. That's a serious accomplishment in the bigger picture of things. If they don't like bikes much, I guess I don't see that it's such a big deal.

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    88
    Given what happened to the Bruce Trail poster I imagine this might be my last message on this forum (not that I come that often anyways).

    But frankly, circ, that was the most embarrassing online behavior (or offline behavior) I've seen from a mountain biker in a very long time. A reasonable voice from the organization comes on here to speak about the Bruce Trail and you attack him and throw him off.

    I HAPPEN TO OWN TWO KILOMETERS of the Bruce Trail (i.e. it's on my land, I know I don't own the trail, I own the land underneath it, but I digress). And CIRC, from your behavior I can tell you that you, in particular, are probably not welcome as I can just imagine the way you would act when I asked you what you're doing on MY property.

    As for the rest of mountain bikers (like me, a great bunch of folks!) I too would kick the Bruce Trail off if I saw a constant stream of riders. And I've ridden for years, ride well, etc. I'm a true mountain biker but the reality is that I haven't invested millions in order to share with the entire province. Call it NIMBY, but that's the truth. Would you like me to come ride in your back yard? Maybe set up a jump area and drop some gels?

    Just like the hunters that showed up today you don't have a God-given right to cross my land.

    Take a moment and consider what Bruce Trail had said, and the fact that these seemingly empty lands are home to somebody (and represent their significant investment) and you might begin to understand why it isn't open season on riding the beautiful Bruce.

    Last post or not, that's what I feel. I look forward to happier threads (and treads!).

  74. #74
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by BermudaBrown View Post
    Last post or not, that's what I feel. I look forward to happier threads (and treads!).
    B-B, thanks for sharing access to your land as part of the Bruce Trail. I completely respect that it's your right whether you choose to do so or not, and also what types of usage you allow. It's your land, it's your choice. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure many people appreciate the opportunity.

    However, I also stand by all my earlier posts in this thread. The user Bruce Trail and the BTA have as much as stated that there policies and efforts are put behind arranging access for pedestrian traffic only, and also that they weight their written materials/maps to be unfavourable toward cycling even when that's not strictly the case (on some landowner segments).

    The Bruce Trail user didn't come here to help, didn't come to open any doors or establish relationships here. Quite the opposite, as they took care to explain that they have pedestrian only policies (i.e. anti-cycling) that will never change, as far as they're concerned.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  75. #75
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    i think circlip did the right thing, based on the mandate of the bta that has remained unchanged for as long as i can remeber with no solution in sight. there is also the policy of the bta that was admitted by this poster to misdirect the public on what activities can be legally taken part on "public" lands. now that stinks to the core. by the way this forum is privately owned, as an agent of the owner circ can act as his position allows... just like you booting off people off your land behaving in a way you don't like, n'est-ce pas? good on you that you invested millions on your private property playground. a lot of people are not that fortunate and they deserve the opportunity to recreate. thankfully local governments are supporting more public multi-use trails. the reality is that as ontario grows there will be more and more users on the trails... good luck keeping them off your property. perhaps you need more signs and a barb wire fence to keep out the undesirables?

    by the way feel free to act the way you want on your lands within the limitations of the laws that govern all of us...

    and be generous to all stakeholders on public lands

    Quote Originally Posted by BermudaBrown View Post
    Given what happened to the Bruce Trail poster I imagine this might be my last message on this forum (not that I come that often anyways).

    But frankly, circ, that was the most embarrassing online behavior (or offline behavior) I've seen from a mountain biker in a very long time. A reasonable voice from the organization comes on here to speak about the Bruce Trail and you attack him and throw him off.

    I HAPPEN TO OWN TWO KILOMETERS of the Bruce Trail (i.e. it's on my land, I know I don't own the trail, I own the land underneath it, but I digress). And CIRC, from your behavior I can tell you that you, in particular, are probably not welcome as I can just imagine the way you would act when I asked you what you're doing on MY property.

    As for the rest of mountain bikers (like me, a great bunch of folks!) I too would kick the Bruce Trail off if I saw a constant stream of riders. And I've ridden for years, ride well, etc. I'm a true mountain biker but the reality is that I haven't invested millions in order to share with the entire province. Call it NIMBY, but that's the truth. Would you like me to come ride in your back yard? Maybe set up a jump area and drop some gels?

    Just like the hunters that showed up today you don't have a God-given right to cross my land.

    Take a moment and consider what Bruce Trail had said, and the fact that these seemingly empty lands are home to somebody (and represent their significant investment) and you might begin to understand why it isn't open season on riding the beautiful Bruce.

    Last post or not, that's what I feel. I look forward to happier threads (and treads!).
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  76. #76
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    by the way feel free to act the way you want on your lands within the limitations of the laws that govern all of us...
    From experience....impersonating a police officer and making threats to someone's personal safety and their family goes over really well.

  77. #77
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    88
    A couple things to add after the reflection of others:

    1) Actually, to be 100% accurate, I should say that the bank owns the majority of the lands (lol). A millionaire I am not.

    2) Yes, there needs to be opportunities for folks to have recreation. That said, in this class-based society, perhaps recreational opportunities will not be equal for all. I can't afford to fly Cessna airplanes as much as I'd like, so I don't. It is not up to the Cessna owners to allow me to fly their planes. In the same light, it's not up to private landowners north of the GTA to provide opportunities for everyone. I mention GTA only because these are the folks that seem to have the least understanding of private land... as a case study, I will tell of three hunters that were on my property this weekend. One (local) asked to hunt before proceeding, and thus got my "yes, no problem". The other two, who just brought their gleaming four-wheel drive with Brampton dealer plates through my DRIVEWAY and on to my fields before attempting to enter the forest just assumed they had a God-given right to use my land. Sadly, they were not be engaged in civil conversation and, due to their incivility were asked, in no uncertain terms, to leave before the police came and forced them to. The difference? One asked, the others didn't.

    3) The way forward, in my opinion? Recognize that the Bruce Trail is a gem put together for the good of all society. This includes mountain bikers, but not on mountain bikes. It also does not include four wheelers, dirt bikes, and quite a number of other potential uses - it isn't just bicycles that are not allowed.

    4) As for keeping people off my land - that's really up to them. Use the Bruce Trail respectfully and it will continue to be there for you. Act like self-righteous individuals with some sort of God-given permission to be there and do as you please and you will no longer be welcomed. My backyard, though it's in the hundreds of acres, is no different than those of the typical user - it is mine and is to be respected.

    Best to all riders - enjoy the Fall colours that are almost gone!




    Quote Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    i think circlip did the right thing, based on the mandate of the bta that has remained unchanged for as long as i can remeber with no solution in sight. there is also the policy of the bta that was admitted by this poster to misdirect the public on what activities can be legally taken part on "public" lands. now that stinks to the core. by the way this forum is privately owned, as an agent of the owner circ can act as his position allows... just like you booting off people off your land behaving in a way you don't like, n'est-ce pas? good on you that you invested millions on your private property playground. a lot of people are not that fortunate and they deserve the opportunity to recreate. thankfully local governments are supporting more public multi-use trails. the reality is that as ontario grows there will be more and more users on the trails... good luck keeping them off your property. perhaps you need more signs and a barb wire fence to keep out the undesirables?

    by the way feel free to act the way you want on your lands within the limitations of the laws that govern all of us...

    and be generous to all stakeholders on public lands

  78. #78
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Thanks again B-B. I'm not sure if there is some misunderstanding here, but no one in this thread has suggested that users of the various segments of the Bruce Trail in present day should be doing anything other than respecting the current allowed usage types by the various land owners and managers (I read it again from top to bottom to be sure).

    As for the concept of mountain bikers perhaps seeking to foster change in the future which might allow them access - on mountain bikes - to more segments of the Bruce in the future, in particular the publicly owned lands but also perhaps for some of the privately owned segments, we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BermudaBrown View Post
    4) As for keeping people off my land - that's really up to them. Use the Bruce Trail respectfully and it will continue to be there for you. Act like self-righteous individuals with some sort of God-given permission to be there and do as you please and you will no longer be welcomed. My backyard, though it's in the hundreds of acres, is no different than those of the typical user - it is mine and is to be respected.

    Best to all riders - enjoy the Fall colours that are almost gone!
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    416
    What I have learned so far about the Bruce;

    Thats whats-UP boys!
    What happened to the Bruce?-2iqbtsu.jpg

    Old hikers with their outdated mindsets can suck it
    Name:  1342761537_dx-suck-it-vip-blog-com-554147589119392_small.jpg
Views: 387
Size:  28.3 KB
    www.abikeslife.com ontario bike stuff!

    WolfPak Racing! :thumbsup:
    https://www.facebook.com/wolfpakracingcanada

  80. #80
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by BermudaBrown View Post
    A couple things to add after the reflection of others:

    1) Actually, to be 100% accurate, I should say that the bank owns the majority of the lands (lol). A millionaire I am not.

    ok, whatever you want to share about your personal finances...

    2) Yes, there needs to be opportunities for folks to have recreation. That said, in this class-based society, perhaps recreational opportunities will not be equal for all. I can't afford to fly Cessna airplanes as much as I'd like, so I don't. It is not up to the Cessna owners to allow me to fly their planes. In the same light, it's not up to private landowners north of the GTA to provide opportunities for everyone. I mention GTA only because these are the folks that seem to have the least understanding of private land... as a case study, I will tell of three hunters that were on my property this weekend. One (local) asked to hunt before proceeding, and thus got my "yes, no problem". The other two, who just brought their gleaming four-wheel drive with Brampton dealer plates through my DRIVEWAY and on to my fields before attempting to enter the forest just assumed they had a God-given right to use my land. Sadly, they were not be engaged in civil conversation and, due to their incivility were asked, in no uncertain terms, to leave before the police came and forced them to. The difference? One asked, the others didn't.

    opportunities on public land is what i talked about. do what you want on your private land...

    3) The way forward, in my opinion? Recognize that the Bruce Trail is a gem put together for the good of all society. This includes mountain bikers, but not on mountain bikes. It also does not include four wheelers, dirt bikes, and quite a number of other potential uses - it isn't just bicycles that are not allowed.

    lol, (sorry) this is the same spiel that a certain character whose anti mtb rhetoric used to grace the use-net and mtb forums.

    4) As for keeping people off my land - that's really up to them. Use the Bruce Trail respectfully and it will continue to be there for you. Act like self-righteous individuals with some sort of God-given permission to be there and do as you please and you will no longer be welcomed. My backyard, though it's in the hundreds of acres, is no different than those of the typical user - it is mine and is to be respected.

    actually it will in the end be up to the bank, insurance compliance, liability coverage, property/trespassing and enforcement laws. do what you want on your land that you hold title to within confines of the law. actually people do have a right to be on "public" land and enforce their right of way on recognized allowances.

    Best to all riders - enjoy the Fall colours that are almost gone!
    see pics on local rides...
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    88
    Circ,

    I like it. I did think that some were suggesting that mountain bikers had a right to the trail.

    I'd love to see someone work to identify which lands mountain bikers are welcomed... the more trails for us all to ride the better! (just not on my land... lol!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Thanks again B-B. I'm not sure if there is some misunderstanding here, but no one in this thread has suggested that users of the various segments of the Bruce Trail in present day should be doing anything other than respecting the current allowed usage types by the various land owners and managers (I read it again from top to bottom to be sure).

    As for the concept of mountain bikers perhaps seeking to foster change in the future which might allow them access - on mountain bikes - to more segments of the Bruce in the future, in particular the publicly owned lands but also perhaps for some of the privately owned segments, we'll have to agree to disagree.

  82. #82
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by singlesprocket View Post
    see pics on local rides...
    Valid points.

    Interestingly the worst 2 interactions in 7 years out here with land owners occurred with the landowners trying to tell me that the track I was on was private land. After checking through a club member who worked for the county....the 2 tracks in question where actually over 300m outside their property line. And one in fact was a deactivated county road which was still under the county control.

    The rest have been good...even shared with me the old tracks that have been deactivated yet still on the books under county control. As well as let me know the snowmobile routes that are passable in non winter. Might have helped it when they have seen me hauling the various alcohol detritus that snowmobile and quad type leave on the track.

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    With respect to the idea of cyclists offering to participate in maintenance activities more formally in return for access, it could be useful to consider the overall state of maintenance on the trail at any given time. It's been some time since I was out there, but at that time, I found the state of maintenance to be consistently higher than expected. So paradoxically, while according to landowner BB the hiking traffic is generally low in numbers, the work is still getting done. I also recall that the membership of the Bruce section is way too low to maintain it, and that section is maintained jointly by members of all sections. Which again is remarkable. What it all says to me is that the management and organization just doesn't need help, from cyclists, or from anyone else really.

    I don't think the BTA has put pressure on the various public land-owners to restrict cycling have they? Are there instances where this has happened?

    Are we in fact talking about the 10000 acres of formerly private land that was bought by the BTC? Not sure how much linear trail that might be, but le't's assume tracts that are some 600 feet in width which makes for a substantial 100+ miles. If we are saying that that land was bought with grants from public agencies, then I'd certainly have to agree they don't have a plank to stand on for excluding cyclists. If it was bought with membership fees and private donations, which were soliicted on the basis of solely hiking usage, then I'd tend to agree that nope, cyclists are never going to ride those sections.

    As for the individual private land-owners, I don't have a problem with the representation given to them that usage would be strictly hiking. Should the BTA be obligated to renegotiate those arrangements for the benefit of cyclists? I wouldn't ask anyone to do that on my behalf, but It may also be a moot point. Seeing as the private ownership has come down from over 50% to about 25% now, and the stated intention of the BTA has always, from the beginning, been to work for a trail with an inconsequential degree of private ownership, then I think we can be assured that private ownership will continue to decline steadily.

    From my point of view, it's parks both national and provincial that should be compelled to open up a little bit. 80%? 90%? or more, funded by taxpayers and now user payment. There has been some progress here and there though I'm not sure I've actually seen any here in Ontario as yet.

  84. #84
    Living Life Behind Bars..
    Reputation: g-t-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    380
    Did the BTA co-ordinator stumble across the thread or was he given a heads up and a suggestion to wade in ? seems odd that with that mandate they would be that concerned with the trail access discussion but it does dove tail nicely into some agendas.

  85. #85
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by g-t- View Post
    Did the BTA co-ordinator stumble across the thread or was he given a heads up and a suggestion to wade in ? seems odd that with that mandate they would be that concerned with the trail access discussion but it does dove tail nicely into some agendas.
    Iíll weigh in again here since this still seems to be a topic of concern for some. This reply is not specifically directed to you g-t-, but is a general post on the topic. Firstly, all the correct answers and information (base on what we have learned) was given in the 4th post of the thread by Slash5. Perhaps we didnít know at the time that Slash5 was right on the money with their post, but itís good to note in retrospect that our fellow users provided the correct information promptly after the topic was created.

    As for the BTC rep, I will summarize and paraphrase the information they provided as being;

    1. Our organization is dedicated to building and maintaining a pedestrian only network of trails.
    2. We donít like to explicitly say that weíre anti-cycling. However, we donít allow bikes on segments we control, and we create and distribute materials that say bikes arenít allowed even on segments where thatís not true but we grudgingly accept these private segments anyhow because itís better to have them as part of the BT on this basis then not at all.
    3. Our organization engages in no activities that support or permit the use of bicycles.
    4. These are core values of our organization and we will never change them.


    We may have some forum users in here in E-C that are OK with all the above, and support the BTC as conservationists, landowners, etc. Youíre welcome to that duality, of course, and welcome to participate in the forum with respect to your mountain biking activities.

    There was no duality with the BTC rep, and they offered no contribution toward the cycling community with their posts, other than to confirm their anti-cycling policies as described in 1-4 above. Unlike some other land owners and managers, no explanation of ďwe support biking in area X, but not in area Y for the following reasonsÖĒ or even ďwe donít support biking now but hereís how we can open a dialogue to discuss for futureĒ. Instead, it was just we donít support any cycling activities, not now, not ever. In terms of being a forum user, that does not meet the minimum threshold of being a contributor (or participant) within the cycling community. Accounts of users who fall into this category get their accounts permanently locked/banned as a general practice, site wide. Whether the user has a job title and related salary doesn't negate this, and affords them no exceptions to this standard. The BTC repís account isnít locked, since they eventually took my suggestion to abstain from further posting.

    Itís a site for mountain bikers and cyclists, not for people or organizations whose only contribution is to oppose those activities. We have other users whose views I am not always 100% in agreement with, but thatís not my place as a moderator to interfere with so long as they are adhering to reasonable habits in their posting that donít muck up threads unnecessarily. They are still contributors to our community and as such have a home here.

    I donít know for certain how they arrived as a user on the mtbr forums. Iím going to guess that as someone involved with PR for the BTC they have web alerts set up to deliver any new keyword hits to their email inbox, but as g-t- suggested it could be that one of our users has some relationship with them and asked them to participate.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,830
    I would have liked for the BTC Rep to have stuck around a bit longer to answer some questions regarding historical funding.

    They indicate a low amount for government grants, but are they just playing with wording when the Trillium Foundation is a gov org and is the funding from them not reported as a government grant.

  87. #87
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    The BTC rep posted up his contact info in this thread. Maybe send them an email, then post up what you learn here? I understand that it may have been more convenient to have some Q&A here, but that's not really fair either for me to let it drag on and allow them to post for a bit knowing all the while that I'm going to cut them off soon after. Have to draw a line in the sand.

    Quote Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    I would have liked for the BTC Rep to have stuck around a bit longer to answer some questions regarding historical funding.

    They indicate a low amount for government grants, but are they just playing with wording when the Trillium Foundation is a gov org and is the funding from them not reported as a government grant.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  88. #88
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    A simple the Empire has spoken would have sufficed.


  89. #89
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    A simple the Empire has spoken would have sufficed.
    I'm feeling the urge to write another huge diatribe to make up for your overly concise post, thereby restoring balance to the universe. Don't tempt me.
    Nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  90. #90
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    I'm feeling the urge to write another huge diatribe to make up for your overly concise post, thereby restoring balance to the universe. Don't tempt me.
    LOL

    But in all seriousness. It would be harder for most MTB groups in Ontario to do what the BTA does. Let's face reality...rarely if at all is there a point to point MTB trail here in Ontario. Everything is pretty much at a certain spot where you park and do some form of a loop.

    The Bruce Trail being as it is pretty much a straight line when it crosses people's property is a straight line. Which would make it easier to negotiate purchasing the land for the trail. If we tried to do that for mountain bikes it would be a nightmare.

  91. #91
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    512
    Exactly. Sounds like other than a few enlightened landowners, the majority were purposefully steered down the path of pedestrian only use by the BTC. Some may want to keep the status quo, others may not realize they have a choice and may be very open to the possibility. Big task to take on and manage professionally though.

    Originally Posted by shirk View Post
    Would love to see a public campaign made to open the Bruce up to mtb.

    An association should form to start lobbying the private land owners to open their land to more than just hiking.

    As Singlesprocket has pointed out, conservation land management policies are changing.
    Big task? A nightmare possibly? I still don't get what you guys have against the BTA. You clearly recognize the hard work they've done. You don't want to do anything like it yourselves. But you want the BTA to take on more of the same hard work so you can ride on the crazy patchwork of disconnected private property segments totalling 200 km of an 800 km linear trail? Sorry, but with respect, I'm clearly missing a piece of the logic here.

    I read through the four pages again, and I still haven't seen the actual evidence for the assertions that the BTA is actively pressuring public land-owners to restrict cycling activities. From what singlesprocket says, it is something to do with posting "No cycling allowed" signs on the private property segments where the land-owner has said they actually don't care, which the BTA guy denies, and failing to add cycling trail markings in a hiking guidebook, which the BTA guy admits. Is that the gist of it? I have the n'th edition I think it is, and I didn't buy it for cycling trails. I bought Rider Mel's for cycling. Didn't seem unreasonable to have two separate guidebooks. Ironically, I do in fact use the BTA guidebook for cycling though. When I want to do a road bike ride anywhere in the BT vicinity, I need a decent place to park and the BTA guide has that info. I also used it to map out a mountain bike loop in the beaver valley because it shows the side roads, concessions and road allowances in the vicinity of the trail. Of course, that stuff is all available on google maps now.

    Folks, I'm afraid I see the BTA as a best-practices kind of organization. It would be hard to do a better job than they. And I would speculate, if cyclists in Ontario were to set out to do the unthinkable and create their own linear trail from scratch which was also open for all hikers and birdwatchers to use at any time with no user fee or membership required but receiving no public funding either, thus beating the BTA fair and square on all fronts, they would still borrow an idea or three from the BTA along the way.

    Willing to be shown where I've gone wrong in this thinking of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    LOL

    But in all seriousness. It would be harder for most MTB groups in Ontario to do what the BTA does. Let's face reality...rarely if at all is there a point to point MTB trail here in Ontario. Everything is pretty much at a certain spot where you park and do some form of a loop.

    The Bruce Trail being as it is pretty much a straight line when it crosses people's property is a straight line. Which would make it easier to negotiate purchasing the land for the trail. If we tried to do that for mountain bikes it would be a nightmare.

  92. #92
    humber river advocate
    Reputation: singlesprocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,391
    actually i'm working on that (as well as other people)... though keep in mind what shirk said... the bta has received millions in public funding and has a considerable war chest generating capital from that funding. they use that to generate influence/control and to forward their agenda. while some of their agenda is noble such as conservation. other parts reek of exclusionary tactics and a bigoted mind set towards other trail users. in some ways they are no better then a developer


    as a society do we want to except this as a way of sustainable conservation and trail use?

    is this the best way forward?







    Quote Originally Posted by Kay. View Post
    if cyclists in Ontario were to set out to do the unthinkable and create their own linear trail from scratch which was also open for all hikers and birdwatchers to use at any time with no user fee or membership required but receiving no public funding either, thus beating the BTA fair and square on all fronts, they would still borrow an idea or three from the BTA along the way.

    Willing to be shown where I've gone wrong in this thinking of course.
    broadcasting from
    "the vinyl basement"

    build trail!

  93. #93
    Workin for the weekend!
    Reputation: -Todd-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,332
    i can't think of too many places anymore where it's politically correct to say it's ok for type A to use this facility, but not type B. The idea of inclusiveness isn't something you can overlook anymore. Looking deeper, IMBA has a structured and defined methodology of trail building practices, and the BTA is a well structured and funded organization, is it too far out there to think that the two might find some harmony?

    MTB is only gaining in popularity, it's considered the "new golf" - social and physical group activity. Those who think that the BT can maintain their holyer than thou "hikers only" attitude are only running out of time. Ongoing pressure will create change and until the trail police challenge me in the woods I'll continue to do what I do, where I do it. If/when a land owner (who approves of foot traffic but not tire traffic) decides he wants to give me a piece of their mind, I'll do my very best to represent the MTB crowd in a positive light.

    To debate this further is silly, carry on and ride your bike.
    Todd :thumbsup:

  94. #94
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,302
    This came across my desk recently...

    Trespass to Property Act ę AmbientLight

Similar Threads

  1. RIP Jack Bruce
    By Ladmo in forum Off Camber (off topic)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-28-2014, 12:10 PM
  2. Bruce Adventure!
    By charlesmach in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-02-2014, 07:46 AM
  3. riding the bruce trail
    By trailtrash in forum Eastern Canada
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-08-2011, 08:22 AM
  4. Bruce Ridge ACT
    By Bucket Master in forum Australia, New Zealand
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 11:47 PM
  5. Bruce Gordon
    By modifier in forum Vintage, Retro, Classic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-06-2011, 07:36 PM

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.